Good book on Mormonism?

[RebeccaJ]

Mromons regularly evangelize people at their own doorsteps, and Catholics are especially vulnerable to this, IMHO, because the RCC has never evolved a good, churchwide system of post-confirmation religious education, geared to helping Catholics not only live their faith but discuss it in terms understandable to outsiders.

Classes are available, problem is, parents don’t take their children to them.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Mromons regularly evangelize people at their own doorsteps, and Catholics are especially vulnerable to this, IMHO, because the RCC has never evolved a good, churchwide system of post-confirmation religious education, geared to helping Catholics not only live their faith but discuss it in terms understandable to outsiders. Protestants have had 150-plus years of Sunday-schools, geared towards all ages and in many denominations towards a variety of needs and environments. So the bleed-away of less-actrive Protestants is less acute than that of less-active Catholics.

Islam has become to the current generation what Eastern Religions were to the 1960’s and 1970’s–a counterculture religion. So there is a mystique and appeal to it, despite it’s associations with violence and terror, deserved or underserved as those associations may be.

In my experience (this is going to sound harsh I apologize) the only protestants who wind up getting sucked into silliness like the Mormon or JW faith systems are either crack heads or junkies of some sort.

If you’re out there Mormons (and were once a regular Christian of some sort) and this sounds like you – we do want you back whole heartedly. You will get nothing but love when you return to the bosom of a real church of God.

The biggest reason that one sees so many posts on these subjects however, is that Muslims and Mormons come to the site regularly to engage Catholics on the issues. Jehovah’s Witnesses are as aggressive as Mormons in door-to-door proselyting but aren’t nearly so frequently the subject of threads on this forum becasue they aren’t supposed to be here. Even Christian Scientists (admittedly not a growing movement) or Seventh-day Adventists are not here very often to respond when their groups are criticised. So after a few exchanges about the SDA movement or Mary Baker Eddy, the threads tend to die and no follow-up threads are usually spawned from peripheral issues raised in other threads.

I cannot fathom a Catholic or Protestant becoming Mormon or JW much less a Muslim (God forbid). I don’t want to speak harshly of these people (since I’ve received demerits in the past for harshness towards Muslims) – but the word is clear:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

And Lord means Lord, not a title akin to some dignitary or monarch (as I know at least JW’s and I think also Mormons would frame it). If you do not believe this you have only an expectation of wrath – period.

On the other hand, Episcopalians are almost as commonly discussed as Mormons, and ARE represented on this forum rather liberally–so we see threads on Anglican issues come up several times a week, if not daily.

Just my opinion.

That’s OK even Protestant make fun of Episcopalians (although I love them all).

 

[flameburns623]

Classes are available, problem is, parents don’t take their children to them.

Not CHILDREN’S classes. ADULT classes. Sunday schools, run by and for the parish members as in Protestant churches. Sternly mandated by the bishops, with the usual exceptions made for serious reason. Preferably made a part of one’s Sunday obligation. Most Protestant churches see something between 45% and 60% of the people who attend worship also in the Sunday-School classes. If there were definite, specified obligations, under pain of mortal sin, for Catholics to continue their religious education )say, forty hours per year in a class approved by the local ordinary), and Sunday classes for various categories of adults, Catholics could achieve at least the same level of attendance in Sunday School classes as Protestants. Of course, this would not account for the vast numbers who skip their Sunday obligation altogether, at least not at first. Give the Sundays schools a generation or two to take effect those and you might see a surprising boost in that as well.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I cannot fathom a Catholic or Protestant becoming Mormon

Oh I can. Happened to my daughter–right under my nose! First there’s the love bombs–the LDS are so nice and friendly. Then there’s our church (LDS) is just as moral as your church (and we are both Christian so it really doesn’t matter. (I’ve actually had Mormon Missionaries try take this tact with me!) Then there’s the our church is scriptural and your church is not and your church even admits to sinners in its history!. (Facts do not matter here–what matters is that the poorly catechized cannot “answer” the false claims and there is no mention that sinful people in history do not negate God’s founding the Catholic Church or remaining faithful to His word.) Then there’s the “let’s keep this a secret from your parents” since they really don’t have your best interests at heart and would try to stop you from doing what you want." Then there’s the fact that the LDS are relentless–they never give up until the Catholic is dunked LDS–then they drop the charade.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not CHILDREN’S classes. ADULT classes. Sunday schools, run by and for the parish members as in Protestant churches.

Really? Most parishes have religious education for adults AND children. We just don’t call it “Sunday School”.

Sternly mandated by the bishops, with the usual exceptions made for serious reason. Preferably made a part of one’s Sunday obligation.

The Catholic Church is not the Mormon Church. When parents baptize their children, they are making vows to raise their children as Catholics. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure their children are educated.

Most Protestant churches see something between 45% and 60% of the people who attend worship also in the Sunday-School classes. If there were definite, specified obligations, under pain of mortal sin, for Catholics to continue their religious education )say, forty hours per year in a class approved by the local ordinary), and Sunday classes for various categories of adults, Catholics could achieve at least the same level of attendance in Sunday School classes as Protestants.

Well, the Catholic Church just doesn’t make stuff up willey nilley. Pain of mortal sin? Where is this commandment of God?

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the grave responsibility of parents to ensure their children receive a Christian education.

Of course, this would not account for the vast numbers who skip their Sunday obligation altogether, at least not at first. Give the Sundays schools a generation or two to take effect those and you might see a surprising boost in that as well.

Vatican II made reforms in this area.

Please learn what the Catholic Church teaches and practices before you start making stuff up.

The Declaration on Christian Education is a good place to start.

 

[AMDGtoo]

. Pain of mortal sin? Where is this commandment of God?

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the grave responsibility of parents to ensure their children receive a Christian education.

Actually, the Catholic Church has that (from time to time, the Church has listed specific duties of Catholics). It’s under the Precepts of the Church (2041-2043, 2048 in the CCC) about continuing education of members. (Precept #3 of the usualy listed 7 Precepts is “to study Catholic teaching in preparation for the Sacrament of Confirmation, to be Confirmed, and then to continue to study and advance the cause of Christ.”) Obedience to the Precepts is also supposed to be included in an Examination of Concience for the Sacrament of Confession, but many folks have “conveniently” forgotten about it to the point where many Catholics (and certainly non-Catholics) don’t even realize it nowadays.

 

[flameburns623]

Really? Most parishes have religious education for adults AND children. We just don’t call it “Sunday School”.

The Catholic Church is not the Mormon Church. When parents baptize their children, they are making vows to raise their children as Catholics. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure their children are educated.

Well, the Catholic Church just doesn’t make stuff up willey nilley. Pain of mortal sin? Where is this commandment of God?

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the grave responsibility of parents to ensure their children receive a Christian education.

Vatican II made reforms in this area.

Please learn what the Catholic Church teaches and practices before you start making stuff up.

The Declaration on Christian Education is a good place to start.

Rebecca:

Continuing growth in religious knowledge AFTER one is confirmed and AFTER one becomes an independent adult is an obligation of all Roman Catholics. Right now it qualifies more as an ‘admonition’ than a strict law or precept of the Church–that is to say, no one is bound under mortal sin to make positive steps to conform to that obligation. On the other hand, other obligations ARE elevated to the level of mortal sin. (One must fast one hour prior to receiving Holy Communion, under pain of mortal sin for example–unless there is a serious reason why this is impossible). It is within the scope of the authority of the Catholic Church to do the same with continuing adult education, and I was merely suggesting this would be extremely helpful to the RCC. Sunday Schools also exist in Episcopalian churches, and tend to be equally ignored there. The difference is that the Episcopal Church has no way of actually enforcing attendance in such, even if there were a will to do so. The RCC could do this, though are not likely. I merely extended a suggestion. You seem to have taken my comment as a criticism.

Vatican II had the unfortunate consequence of making Catholic obligations more lax than more stringent–it abolished the rule of fasting entirely for some number of years I believe before returning to a nominal fast of one hour. At one time this fast was for three hours and previous to that, from midnight. Any number of other things were less stringently enforced. Under JPII, things tightened up considerably again thankfully.

By the way–I suspect I would score considerably higher than you on any objective written test on Catholic doctrine and practices. Not bragging, but you’re assuming ignorance of me (in a rather insulting way). And I’m not a Mormon so am unsure where the “the RCC is not the Mormon Church” comment came from.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca:

Continuing growth in religious knowledge AFTER one is confirmed and AFTER one becomes an independent adult is an obligation of all Roman Catholics. Right now it qualifies more as an ‘admonition’ than a strict law or precept of the Church–that is to say, no one is bound under mortal sin to make positive steps to conform to that obligation. On the other hand, other obligations ARE elevated to the level of mortal sin. (One must fast one hour prior to receiving Holy Communion, under pain of mortal sin for example–unless there is a serious reason why this is impossible). It is within the scope of the authority of the Catholic Church to do the same with continuing adult education, and I was merely suggesting this would be extremely helpful to the RCC. Sunday Schools also exist in Episcopalian churches, and tend to be equally ignored there. The difference is that the Episcopal Church has no way of actually enforcing attendance in such, even if there were a will to do so. The RCC could do this, though are not likely. I merely extended a suggestion. You seem to have taken my comment as a criticism.

Vatican II had the unfortunate consequence of making Catholic obligations more lax than more stringent–it abolished the rule of fasting entirely for some number of years I believe before returning to a nominal fast of one hour. At one time this fast was for three hours and previous to that, from midnight. Any number of other things were less stringently enforced. Under JPII, things tightened up considerably again thankfully.

By the way–I suspect I would score considerably higher than you on any objective written test on Catholic doctrine and practices. Not bragging, but you’re assuming ignorance of me (in a rather insulting way). And I’m not a Mormon so am unsure where the “the RCC is not the Mormon Church” comment came from.

Fine, become Pope and start naming everything under the sun as a mortal sin.

I assume you are mormon because you think like a mormon. Enforce a meeting block of 3 hours, take role, and knock on people’s doors if they don’t show up.

Nightmarish if you ask me.

 

[flameburns623]

Fine, become Pope and start naming everything under the sun as a mortal sin.

I assume you are Mormon because you think like a Mormon. Enforce a meeting block of 3 hours, take role, and knock on people’s doors if they don’t show up.

Nightmarish if you ask me.

I went to Catholic Mass this weekend. Started at 6:30 AM–I was back in my car at 6:55 AM. Even if I’d stayed for a Sunday School class that lasted an hour, I’d’ve been at the church slightly less than an hour-and-a-half. The High Mass at this church lasts, oh, about 55 minutes or so. And this is a church whose priests tend to be pretty reverent in their praying of the Mass. Even the Tridentine High Mass at St. Francis de Sales in St. Louis only goes about an hour-and-a half. Add in a Sunday School class and you’d be in church all of two-and-a-half hours. Such misery!:bigyikes:

All of which begs the issue I am really trying to point out. The Catholic Church theoretically requires it’s members to continue to grow in religious knowledge throughout their lives. It is really not an option for Rebbecca J. or any other faithful Catholic to keep learning, only how they set about it. But the RCC doesn’t keep that obligation before the congregation in quite the way they keep other obligations prominent. One cannot long listen to Catholic radio nor attend Catholic services without hearing about abortion, birth control, or the Rosary.

But one usually must seriously exert oneself to learn of any sort of continuing education classes for Catholic adults in most parishes I have attended over the years. Priests certainly don’t exhort the parishioners to attend such classes. There are no diocesan campaigns I have ever experienced urging Catholics to avail themselves of such opportunities. No banners or posters extolling such classes decorate the foyers and fellowship halls. Catholics are largely allowed to let their religious education languish, and those relative few Catholics who do take interest in such things are widely suspected of aspiring to religious life.

Which is why almost every Protestant Church, not to mention every Buddhist, Hindu, or New Age group has so many self-identified lapsed Catholics. Many of whom show abysmal ignorance of their former faith. I’ve had former Catholics tell me they became Protestants because “the Pope stopped teaching about the Trinity” or similar nonsense.

Now, I’ve heard former Protestants who verbalized parodies of their former belief-systems, but I’ve never met a former Pentecostal who claimed she or he left her denomination “because the Assemblies of God stopped speaking in tongues”, nor any former Church of Christ member who left because “they don’t baptise by immersion over there any more”. Ex-Catholics tend to be ingnorant of their faith in ways that ex-Proteatants could never be, simply because so many Catholics stop formally learning about their faith immediately following confirmation. By the time they are young adults they often forget all theiy ever knew of their Church. THAT is the reason I am making the suggestion I made.

As for the ‘pope’ comment . . .are they elevating lapsed, married, lay Catholics to the Papacy these days?:tiphat: Last time I looked, those were sort of low on the priority list of papal candidates. I think I stand a better chance of becoming Governor of Alaska. Not that I’ve ever hunted or field-dressed a moose, you understand . . . .

 

[Mike_Reed]

Hey B,

Yeah, I look at some of those comments by FAIR - FARMS guys and just shake my head. This is a good example: “When Brigham Young declared that Joseph ‘reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere,’ the ‘there’ spoken of was not the celestial kingdom, but, rather, the spirit world.”

I really hate to ask the obvious question, but well, here goes: Where exactly IS the Celestial Kingdom? Hmmmmm, let’s see…Oh, yeah, it’s in the Spirit World that Joseph watches over and reigns supreme.

This question has been answered to you time and time again, Rich; on ZLMB, the FAIR message boards, and my review. Shake your head all you want, but until you learn the basics of Mormon doctrine, you will never be an authority of Mormonism.

Again… it is incorrect to equate the “Spirit World” with the “Celestial Kingdom” in Mormon doctrine, just as it would be incorrect to equate “Limbo” or “Purgatory” with “Heaven” in Catholic doctrine. Similar to the Catholic tradition of “Purgatory,” Mormon doctrine teaches that the “Spirit World” is a realm where spirits await the resurrection, the final judgment, and their heavenly reward. “Limbo” or “Purgatory” isn’t “Heaven” in Catholicism. Neither is the “Spirit World” the “Celestial Kingdom” in Mormonism. According to Mormon doctrine, the “Celestial Kingdom” is the highest degree of glory in Heaven.

Here is a link to the Gospel Principles Manual (published by the LDS Church) that will explain to you this very basic LDS doctrine: lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=6d8b7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____
FYI… The Gospel Principles manual is LDS church curriculum for new members and potential converts. Like I said… very basic doctrine.

They love to mince words, slice and dice, nit-pick at jots and tittles, while missing the big white elephant sitting on their backs. Ah well. It sometimes does make for interesting reading and seeing how people think and analyze things.

Hardly a nit-pick. Your failure to grasp basic Mormon doctrine exposes your claim to be an authority of Mormonism absolutely bunk.

Oh, and BTW, just FYI, here’s what I actually wrote on p. 175 to flesh out the precise meaning of what Young was saying:

“Brigham Young, for instance warned: ‘(N)o man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. . . . (E)very man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are.’ He explained: ‘[Smith] holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation – the keys to rule in the spirit world; and he rules there triumphantly. . . . He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.’”

No, no, NO. This is what you wrote in your paperback edition AFTER I already showed you (on ZLMB) that your quote changed the meaning of what Young said. Your first edition HARDBACK originally said, “Brigham Young, for instance, warned that no one would ever get into God’s celestial kingdom ‘without the consent of Joseph Smith… He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.’” (HB, p. 175).

As I explained in my review, "Abanes uses the elision to create the false impression that Brigham Young was equating Joseph Smith’s status in the celestial kingdom with God’s. When Brigham Young declared that Joseph ‘reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere,’ the ‘there’ spoken of was not the celestial kingdom, but, rather, the spirit world.”

 

[Mike_Reed]

**QUOTED BY FLAME: The advantage of the FAIR-LDS review is that it listed a number of the historical issues the reviewer felt showed the flaws in ONUG.

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ…d=527&q=abanes**

I have a full rebuttal of this so-called “review” that shows how full of misrepresentations it is. I also include my responses to the false statements Reed makes about his contacts with my editor Rob Grover, and the false statements from Grover himself – who was fired from his position after editing my original hard cover.

Several of the errors that crept into that edition were a direct result of editing errors on the part of Grover. Anyone who wants a copy of this public statement – VERY lengthy and detailed – need only email me from my website www.abanes.com.

R.A.

I’d like a copy, Rich. My email addy is mike_g_reed@yahoo.com
Would this “rebuttal” happen to be the same one that you posted on the FAIR message boards several months ago, and I challenged you to have a one-on-one debate over it… but you said you weren’t interested? (chuckle)

 

[Mike_Reed]

On a side note… participants on this forum might be interested to learn that you are also one of those sensational anti-Harry Potter folk.

Aak! JK Rowling is trying to convert our kids to Witchcraft!! Mormons are out to take over the World!! Run for your LIVES!!!

“Richard Abanes - the most histrionic doomsayer to come along since Chicken Little.” Kristin Tillotson (Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities [Minneapolis, MN], November 18, 2001)

I couldn’t say it better myself.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Hardly a nit-pick. Your failure to grasp basic Mormon doctrine exposes your claim to be an authority of Mormonism absolutely bunk.

I would suggest, Mr. Reed, that you tone down your rhetoric and ego. You also need to read up on libel, too, should you choose to go after someone not as forgiving as me. You’ll be answered sufficiently and civilly in due time – contrary to how you chose to make false accusations publicly with little regard for truth. I was hoping you had grown up a bit over the last few years. I see my hopes were in vain. But, Merry Christmas, nevertheless. And, just fyi, adults do not debate children. All of your little twists and perversions you call arguments will be answered in due time.

R.A.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

On a side note… participants on this forum might be interested to learn that you are also one of those sensational anti-Harry Potter folk. Aak! JK Rowling is trying to convert our kids to Witchcraft!! Mormons are out to take over the World!! Run for your LIVES!!! “Richard Abanes - the most histrionic doomsayer to come along since Chicken Little.” Kristin Tillotson (Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities [Minneapolis, MN], November 18, 2001) I couldn’t say it better myself.

Goodness, we are desperate aren’t we? Pulling out all the stops and even misrepresenting my position on Harry Potter in hopes of poisoning the well for anyone who might be interested in what i have to say about Mormonism. That is indeed sad. I am most certainly not, “one of those sensational anti-Harry Potter folk.” In fact, I’ve spoken out against them, and condemned all the book banning and burning and sensationalism. I’d venture to say you haven’t read a thing I’ve said about HP. Anyone who wants to know exactly what I’ve said about HP can read about it at my website. Mr. Reed is perhaps one of the most unreliable sources of information about me on the web. Hmm, I must have done something to draw his attention. Sigh.

RA

 

[RebeccaJ]

 

[Mike_Reed]

Goodness, we are desperate aren’t we? Pulling out all the stops and even misrepresenting my position on Harry Potter in hopes of poisoning the well for anyone who might be interested in what i have to say about Mormonism. That is indeed sad. I am most certainly not, “one of those sensational anti-Harry Potter folk.” In fact, I’ve spoken out against them, and condemned all the book banning and burning and sensationalism. I’d venture to say you haven’t read a thing I’ve said about HP. Anyone who wants to know exactly what I’ve said about HP can read about it at my website. Mr. Reed is perhaps one of the most unreliable sources of information about me on the web. Hmm, I must have done something to draw his attention. Sigh.

RA

I know a bit about your claims against JK Rowling… including your footnoted assertion about her believing in Magic. Remember your public embarrassment several years during that wonderful debate with Connie Neal? (chuckle) Why don’t you tell us all about that eventful day? Yes… you may not be as extreme as other anti-Harry Potter folk, but you are certainly willing (as it seems) to spread lies about Rowling, just as you are about Mormonism, and Grover your editor. Just as you were on the Hank Hanegraff show, when I called up to expose your drivel. You and Hank edited 2/3 of my comments from the show… and then blew them off as a mere difference in interpretation, when you KNEW it wasn’t about interpretation. Heck… you blamed the errors on your editor for pete’s sake.

 

[BDawg]

Hello Richard,

I’m interested in what you have to say about Mike’s comments about the Spirit World vs. the Celestial Kingdom. This is a point that all of my kids (oldest is 12) would know about. Do you honestly think that the Celestial Kingdom is in the Spirit World in Mormon thought?

Confundus!

 

[Mike_Reed]

I would suggest, Mr. Reed, that you tone down your rhetoric and ego. You also need to read up on libel, too, should you choose to go after someone not as forgiving as me. You’ll be answered sufficiently and civilly in due time – contrary to how you chose to make false accusations publicly with little regard for truth. I was hoping you had grown up a bit over the last few years. I see my hopes were in vain. But, Merry Christmas, nevertheless. And, just fyi, adults do not debate children. All of your little twists and perversions you call arguments will be answered in due time.

R.A.

Libel only is applicable if my claims are not true. What have I said that is not true?

Regarding my tone… it would have been much more civil, had you not first accused me (again) of spreading lies.

 

[Mike_Reed]

Hello Richard,

I’m interested in what you have to say about Mike’s comments about the Spirit World vs. the Celestial Kingdom. This is a point that all of my kids (oldest is 12) would know about. Do you honestly think that the Celestial Kingdom is in the Spirit World in Mormon thought?

Confundus!

 

[Snow]

I have a friend who has recently written me this:

"I’m wondering if either of you might know of any definitive written resource re: Mormon doctrine. As you may or may not know, my daughter is dating a young man who is Mormon (together for almost 5 months, which, in high school is akin to 25 years). While we care for this boy a great deal, the chasm between their religions is presenting itself and my daughter is increasingly open to and accepting of his explanation of his religion - as skewed and incorrect as I believe some of these explanations have been.

I’m having a very difficult time finding a resource which is not neck-deep in theology and history - one that simply outlines LDS belief systems, where and when they originated and the person of Joseph Smith. I also want to avoid “sour grapes” books, written from the perspective of past members. In short, I’m looking for a straightforward, objective review of the history of this church and the belief structure that defines them.

My husband, daughter, and I have all agreed to read and discuss such a book when we can locate it. Hopefully, in doing so, she can gain clear and unbiased information on the Mormon church and make spiritual decisions with a foundation of knowledge rather than a desire to hold someone near to her whom she is growing to care for more each day and whose family she so wants to accept her.

Any ideas?"

I recommended the book,

“One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church” by Richard Abanes

amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-Gods-History/dp/1568582838/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224095956&sr=8-1

However, if anyone has any other recommendations, let me know. My friend is a Christian (she does not go to church anywhere right now), she is not Catholic (though I am not opposed to Catholic sources, of course).

Thanks.

You gotta be kidding?

Abanes? The guy who poses for his book face shot wearing safari getup?

Dude - show a little discernment. If you want to know about Catholics you don’t go to an 2nd rate anti-Catholic “expose” writer.