How to Evangelize Mormons

[RebeccaJ]

I would concluded that Mormons believe ‘A’=‘B’. Faith is their reason.

Absolutely agree. We’ve seen it here, multiple times, particularly with historical claims that come from Mormonism. What is believed/taught is history. Attempting to discuss actual historical facts go nowhere. History is what one believes and what one believes is history.

 

[TOmNossor]

Rebecca and Stephen168,

It is nice that you agree with one another, but you are misrepresenting the CoJCoLDS. Rebecca, you know this because you post on the LDS board and don’t say the junk you say here when there. Why the difference? It seems to me that a true representation of what informed LDS believe is too threatening, but perhaps it is something else.

Here are links to what I believe Stephen168 has horribly misread (in addition to his misreading and misquoting me). He didn’t provide a link, but his quotes are present here.

Sister Laura Clarke Bridgewater aka, Dr. Bridgewater:

mormonscholarstestify.org/2600/laura-clarke-bridgewater

Richard Bushman (also Dr. Bushman).

mormonscholarstestify.org/396/richard-lyman-bushman

And 351 other testimonies and counting. Most or all of whom are specifically posting in response to the criticism Stephen168 offers. Deep and profound thinkers are LDS. Unlike the trend in non-LDS Christianity which is precisely the opposite, “Studies have shown that among Latter-day Saints (Mormons), higher levels of education are strongly correlated with higher church attendance, and higher levels of devotion.”

mormonscholarstestify.org

Does anyone believe the point of these SCHOLARS testifying is to demonstrate that they believe based on “faith and not reason?” I do not.

I want to recommend that when evangelizing Mormon’s, Catholics should begin by explaining how Mormons do not us reason, their scholars do not use reason, and how the whole enterprise is counter-reason. If they ask questions about what you are saying and ask if they misunderstand you, tell them simply, “Obviously, yes.” That will set the stage for mutual understanding and help lead LDS from their errors!

Of course if all you want is to congratulate fellow Catholics for not being unreasonable Mormons, it doesn’t matter how you speak.

Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

I’m not here to argue what LDS scholars believe or don’t believe. The level of education is really irrelevant. Most world religions have exceptionally educated people among their memberships, for which you can thank the Catholic Church.

It doesn’t matter that these scholars have testimonies as it is a meaningless as proof of truth. I would guess a large number of people who attend church on Sunday have some sort of belief in their particular version of faith. I don’t go to Mass on Sunday to show my neighbors I believe, nor do I expect any of my neighbors to tell me they know the Catholic Church is the one true & holy Church or anything else affirming Catholicism. I pretty much take the idea they show up week after week means they are somewhere on their spiritual journey and it’s neither mine or anyone else’s business unless they choose to discuss it.

I wonder how many “testimonies” are just made up so one can feel part of the group. Does having an affirmative testimony up your place in the LDS and therefore reach a higher level of heaven?

 

[Stephen168]

Taken out of context, I think this still does not support your view that “this LDS poster” places no weight upon REASON. It in fact says precisely the opposite.

I included your conclusion and not your testimony. Saying “out of context” or “misquoting” suggests a change in meaning; there was none. Your belief in the Book of Mormon is based in your faith. You even mock reason as the “catholic theory” and suggest it is not “God’s method.”

On other threads you and other Mormons have been surprised by the suggestion that not one non-Mormon scientist believes the Book of Mormon is true as defined by Mormon scripture. Surprised because believing the Book of Mormon is “true” is a Mormon statement of faith, so why would a non-Mormon believe the Book of Mormon is “true.”

On other threads, Mormons have rejected reason as a way to know the Book of Mormon is true or they have a “testimony” that the Book of Mormon is true. Again their belief is based in faith, not reason.

 

[TOmNossor]

Philosophy is a discipline of reason and intellect, wholly and wholeheartedly rejected by Mormon leaders from Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson.

Obviously, transubstantiation and other miracles cannot be proven via the scientific method. In fact if they could we wouldn’t call them miracles. They can, however, be explained via disciplined reason and intellect.

Mormonism has mountains of “stuff”, which are brought up repeatedly in almost every thread remotely related to Mormonism. There is no disciplined reason to explain Mormonism and never will be since Mormonism instills a fear of reason, calling it the “philosophies of men”.

Additionally Mormonism and miracles are an oxymoron and to claim there is a comparison to Catholic teaching about miracles is diversionary rhetoric. Mormonism seeks to explain all miracles with natural explanations. All miracles will have a scientific explanation for Mormons, someday. So to say a Mormon miracle has no scientific explanation is the same as saying “I dunno”. “I dunno” is not disciplined reason.

So-called Mormon scholarship, well, sophistry and cherry picking is not a discipline.

Rebecca,

Please do not consider this a retraction of my criticism of your misrepresenting of my faith. However, I did find some interesting things in this post and thought I might comment a little.

There is an anti-philosophy strain within LDS thought. A handful of philosophy classes at BYU have addressed students linking of philosophy with “the philosophies of men.” One of Ostler’s responses is still my favorite, “we can talk about your philosophy of rejecting all philosophies.”

I think there are many reasons for these anti-philosophy strains. It is OBVIOUS to any honest observer that philosophical language as opposed to Biblical language entered into the Christian religion very early. Many of the concepts expressed by philosophic language are rejected by LDS.

The argument that Greek philosophy influences Christian thought is pretty solid. That Greek philosophy corrupted Christian thought is one manifestation that many LDS who have considered this also embrace. Non-LDS authors like Harnack have derided the influence of Greek Philosophy on Christian doctrine. LDS have read and embraced such thoughts in some cases.

I personally think rejecting philosophy is impossible because such a stance is philosophical in itself. I suspect Catholic Bishops are much more familiar with the terms Metaphysics, Axiology, and Epistemology than are LDS Stake Presidents (or LDS Bishops). That being said, all people have thoughts on Metaphysics, Axiology, and Epistemology (even if they have never heard the terms) and many LDS philosophers have spent a great deal of time apply “reason and intellect” to these subjects and how they fit into understanding the gospel.

I very much reject the statement that Mormonism has mountains of stuff such that “there is no disciplined reason to explain Mormonism and never will be since Mormonism instills a fear of reason.” Mormonism has on occasion allowed a “fear of reason” to pervade within certain circles, but it has never ended the LDS continued striving for truth and reason. As I mentioned earlier, LDS who are better educated are more committed to the CoJCoLDS. This reverse trend is usually presented for Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular (though I think some recent studies are rehabilitating this assessment).

Lastly, I am also aware of a strain of LDS thought that might produce your claim that miracles are an “oxymoron” within Mormonism. LDS believe that God desires to lift us to experience His life in communion with Him. Those who become gods will be able to do all God can do (in communion with God). As such, one can say that a certain definition of “miracle” is unavailable to the LDS thinker. I think such is not quite fair (but far from the least fair things said).

Here is what you get when you search for miracles on lds.org:

lds.org/search?q=Miracles&lang=eng

I don’t think you rejection miracles is well supported in the results.
Charity, TOm

 

[acarlson]

Hello,

I have a friend who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I have had religious discussions with her for a long time about our two contrasting faiths. I feel the need right now and the call of the Holy Spirit to re-invigorate and evangelize her and bring her to the truth of Christ.

Does anyone have any tips or guides to help evangelize and bring Mormons to Christ? Or does anyone have any books that would be helpful for this?

Thank you!

Pray. God is the one who converts.

 

[Stephen168]

There is an anti-philosophy strain within LDS thought.

Yes, I believe it is all part of the anti-Catholic, apostasy belief that are the foundation of Mormonism.

But, if the Catholic method of knowing truth frequently advocated by Catholic apologists (some kind of appeal to the “facts” of history) is God’s method, the existence of the BOM is unexplainable for me via some Catholic theory…

Some posts by LDS Posters:

No, that’s not what I believe. I believe that there was an apostasy, revelation ceased and the church turned to Greek philosophy to develop and understand their doctrines.

This is a developed understanding that has clear roots in Greek philosophy.

Take a look at the Creeds of the 4th and 5th century for examples of the influence of Greek philosophy rather than the influence of revelation

As the apostasy took hold, beliefs began to morph, taking cues from Hellenistic philosophy. By the 2nd and 3rd century it was was a mixed bag as to what people believed.

It’s demonstrably a human interpretation based on the philosophy current in the day. Now it’s set in stone in a creed, which Catholics hold to be infallible.

This doctrine was adopted by Christians in the second century from the Greek philosophy current at the time.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,

Please do not consider this a retraction of my criticism of your misrepresenting of my faith. However, I did find some interesting things in this post and thought I might comment a little.

There is an anti-philosophy strain within LDS thought. A handful of philosophy classes at BYU have addressed students linking of philosophy with “the philosophies of men.” One of Ostler’s responses is still my favorite, “we can talk about your philosophy of rejecting all philosophies.”

I think there are many reasons for these anti-philosophy strains. It is OBVIOUS to any honest observer that philosophical language as opposed to Biblical language entered into the Christian religion very early. Many of the concepts expressed by philosophic language are rejected by LDS.

The argument that Greek philosophy influences Christian thought is pretty solid. That Greek philosophy corrupted Christian thought is one manifestation that many LDS who have considered this also embrace. Non-LDS authors like Harnack have derided the influence of Greek Philosophy on Christian doctrine. LDS have read and embraced such thoughts in some cases.

I personally think rejecting philosophy is impossible because such a stance is philosophical in itself. I suspect Catholic Bishops are much more familiar with the terms Metaphysics, Axiology, and Epistemology than are LDS Stake Presidents (or LDS Bishops). That being said, all people have thoughts on Metaphysics, Axiology, and Epistemology (even if they have never heard the terms) and many LDS philosophers have spent a great deal of time apply “reason and intellect” to these subjects and how they fit into understanding the gospel.

I very much reject the statement that Mormonism has mountains of stuff such that “there is no disciplined reason to explain Mormonism and never will be since Mormonism instills a fear of reason.” Mormonism has on occasion allowed a “fear of reason” to pervade within certain circles, but it has never ended the LDS continued striving for truth and reason. As I mentioned earlier, LDS who are better educated are more committed to the CoJCoLDS. This reverse trend is usually presented for Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular (though I think some recent studies are rehabilitating this assessment).

Lastly, I am also aware of a strain of LDS thought that might produce your claim that miracles are an “oxymoron” within Mormonism. LDS believe that God desires to lift us to experience His life in communion with Him. Those who become gods will be able to do all God can do (in communion with God). As such, one can say that a certain definition of “miracle” is unavailable to the LDS thinker. I think such is not quite fair (but far from the least fair things said).

Here is what you get when you search for miracles on lds.org:

lds.org/search?q=Miracles&lang=eng

I don’t think you rejection miracles is well supported in the results.
Charity, TOm

You’re funny sometimes. Most of this post is about why philosophy should be feared.

Miracles are all, explainable in Mormonism, via natural explanations, including exaltation. So I don’t know what your point is?

 

[Stephen168]

It is nice that you agree with one another, but you are misrepresenting the CoJCoLDS.

Are you saying that your church’s definition of a testimony is not true?
Mormon Church:

A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.

Are you saying the following is not true?

Claim: Mormon belief is based on faith ‘A’ and not really reason ‘B’.

A Mormon’s testimony is ‘A’ as defined by the Mormon Church.

Therefore all testimonies agree with the claim.

Are you saying the following is not true?

Faith is their reason.

Mormons don’t believe in the metaphysical world. Even their God, who was once a man, is physical and lives near the star Kolob. All the claims of the Mormon Church are physical so they can be evaluated with science. When it comes to their church Mormons believe it is true based on a truth of faith and reject any truths of reason/science to the contrary. The same can be said for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith restoring the gospel. These things are believed by faith, given in a testimony, not by reason.

Your response to my argument sounds like it is based in faith, and not reason.

TomNossor:

When these “logical pillars” were shook, I needed what LDS typically call a testimony. God did not give this to me all at once, but I now have what a LDS would call a “spiritual confirmation” that I am in God’s church. God has continued to provide me with similar experience over the years.

Faith over reason

 

[Stephen168]

I want to recommend that when evangelizing Mormon’s, Catholics should begin by explaining how Mormons do not us reason, their scholars do not use reason, and how the whole enterprise is counter-reason. If they ask questions about what you are saying and ask if they misunderstand you, tell them simply, “Obviously, yes.” That will set the stage for mutual understanding and help lead LDS from their errors!

Because it is the subject of this thread, I’ll address this part of your hyperventilation.
First, no one ever said that a Mormon scholar never uses reason, that they do not use reason in their non-religious life. I’m sure they do, that is why they are scholars. BUT they do not use reason in regard to Mormonism. They believe is two different truths.
Second, I’ve been told by ex-Mormons the best way to evangelize Mormons is to never use reason but give them your testimony. Because Mormons don’t respond to reason but they are more likely to respond to a statement of faith.

 

[Peter_J]

Always good advice.

This is not accurate.

I’m no expert but I would be very surprised if it were accurate.

Unfortunately, I have found that there are many readers who will believe something just because it is posted on the web. (I’ve tried to tell them not to.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca and Stephen168,

It is nice that you agree with one another, but you are misrepresenting the CoJCoLDS. Rebecca, you know this because you post on the LDS board and don’t say the junk you say here when there. Why the difference? It seems to me that a true representation of what informed LDS believe is too threatening, but perhaps it is something else.

Oh no, you’re doing the guessing game of what motivates people or not, and doing the thing that says when you disapprove it’s “junk”. If you want to discuss what I think about other venues you can PM me. This thread isn’t about me. I take these tactics of ad hominem and attempting to poison the well, as you, giving up on providing reasoned arguments.

I want to recommend that when evangelizing Mormon’s, Catholics should begin by explaining how Mormons do not us reason, their scholars do not use reason, and how the whole enterprise is counter-reason. If they ask questions about what you are saying and ask if they misunderstand you, tell them simply, “Obviously, yes.” That will set the stage for mutual understanding and help lead LDS from their errors!

Of course if all you want is to congratulate fellow Catholics for not being unreasonable Mormons, it doesn’t matter how you speak.

Charity, TOm

Maybe the best thing is to keep in mind that Mormons are fragile and so always speak in soothing tones and never bring up faith and reason and how they can, and should, work together.

 

[Vonsalza]

Maybe the best thing is to keep in mind that Mormons are fragile and so always speak in soothing tones and never bring up faith and reason and how they can, and should, work together.

Quite right.

The BoM is so chock-full of errors and anachronisms that “reason” to a Mormon would be a petard that destroyed their faith.

It seems their faith is only as strong as the wall they’ve built that separates it from reason.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Quite right.

The BoM is so chock-full of errors and anachronisms that “reason” to a Mormon would be a petard that destroyed their faith.

It seems their faith is only as strong as the wall they’ve built that separates it from reason.

What the tactic is, is to avoid reason. Tom thinks this is misrepresentation, but, I’ve had Mormons say straight up, that they avoid certain topics and all non-Mormon publications on topics, because they don’t want to risk losing their testimony. I think it is prudent, and not hyperbole, to keep in mind that discussion with a Mormon will shut down when they feel their testimony is threatened.

 

[TOmNossor]

Faith over reason

Faith and reason. And also either by itself.

I will again try to explain something that I think has been consistent for my 10+ years on this site.

I believe that the LDS reliance upon direct answer to prayer is a Biblical way of knowing. I believe direct communication with God is something that all Christians should seek and no Christian should discount as irrelevant.

I became a LDS with little to no “direct communication with God.” Based upon my exposure to the church primarily and my exposure to the BOM secondarily (at that time), I believed “Joseph Smith couldn’t do it and the adversary wouldn’t do it.” I still believe this, though after 20 years of study, I believe primarily concerning the BOM and secondarily concerning the church. This is due LARGELY to much more data about the BOM making the BOM more remarkable than I knew 20 years ago.

I seek and continue to seek CERTITUDE. I can conceive of no rational way that 2+2=4 is untrue, but it is not only possible but likely with enough repetitions that someday a true coin uninfluenced by anything could in fact land 20 times in a row on heads. When I weight historical facts, I deal in probabilities. Unstated probabilities, incalculable probabilities, and …, but probabilities. The overwhelming probability that the BOM came from God and what I still consider to be a virtual impossibility that it came through Joseph Smith or some group of men/woman in 1830 timeframe was one day not sufficient for the CERTITUDE I seek. My “dark night of the soul” ensued. I encountered God and over time, came to know via Spiritual witness what I already found so probable was in fact God’s truth not just the product of my rational review of the facts. Today I am still an overly rational person (an engineer with a strong love of math and logic). I told a former nun who was part of my ward 10 years ago that I still believe 90% with my head and only 10% with my heart. She told me she would pray for me. I am not sure if she is right to believe my condition is an ailment requiring God’s cure, but perhaps.

Now, when I referred to the “catholic way of knowing presented by Stephen168,” I mean a weighing of historical facts and probabilities that does not rely upon asking of God in faith for the truth. It is a way I personally find satisfying.

Nobody can experience what I experienced during my “dark night of the soul.” Nobody can experience what St. Thomas Aquinas experienced when he encountered God. When we share the “reason for the hope that is in us” there are things that we can share that are external and things that are internal only.

Based on all the external facts that I have gathered, I can weigh two or more ideas. Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ, is some unity in the essentials version of Protestantism true, did God restore Christianity through Joseph Smith, or ….

LDS and Catholics agree that Christ was the Son of God. That He died and was resurrected. That He choose ancient apostles. That those ancient apostles shared the gospel and choose others to lead and share the gospel.

For Catholicism to be true, there must be an authority present in the Pope that derives from Christ through the apostles (and in alignment with God’s will). For Mormonism to be true, God must have restored an authority that was not present within Catholicism.

It is my position that it is not overly difficult to trace how men chosen by the apostles claimed to be the successors of the apostles when really they were “local leaders.” That we move from Bishops to Metropolitans to Patriarchs and finally to the Pope (not accepted by EO Christians) as power is consolidated in a “closed access society.” It is much harder to explain how someone in 1830’s NY produced the BOM without God’s involvement even acknowledging the problems with the text (along with the evidences for the text).

My historical understanding incorporates God using men to preserve the Bible and the witness of Christ (men like Jerome, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and numerous later Christians). God using men to translate the Bible for all God’s children and initiate a reformation (men like Tyndale, Erasmus, and Luther) and . God helping men move from a “closed access society” to an “open access society” (the reformation being part of this). And God restoring Christianity with public revelation from heaven to Joseph Smith and with the BOM as a rallying point for Christianity.

So, I find that the witness of history makes me a LDS because “Catholic theories” cannot explain the BOM and the restoration well at all, but “LDS theories” can explain the existence of the Catholic Church and the Pope with much less difficulties.

I then add my Spiritual witness to these historical understandings.

Charity, TOm

 

[NeuroTypical]

Does anyone have any tips or guides to help evangelize and bring Mormons to Christ?

I know y’all are 4 pages into this discussion and off on tangents now, but I wanted to call something out that confused me greatly until I finally understood it.

Catholics are very much for evangelizing people.

Catholics are very much against proselytizing people.

These are two terms most mormons don’t really think much about, and we tend to not know there’s a difference. When we go to the dictionary, we see the words are listed as synonyms to each other, and that confuses us further.

From what I’ve come to understand, to Catholics, the first term is all about getting nonChristians to become Christians. And the second term is all about trying to steal members from other Christian religions and make them Catholic (or, in the other direction, trying to steal members from Catholicism and have them become anything else).

Do I have that right folks? Feel free to correct me if I’m off base somewhere. But this is how I’ve explained the totally positive reaction all the Catholics on this thread have reacted to the OP, and the totally negative reaction y’all tend to have when someone shows up here soundingl like they may be trying to proselytize.

 

[Stephen168]

Faith and reason. And also either by itself.

I will again try to explain something that I think has been consistent for my 10+ years on this site.

I believe that the LDS reliance upon direct answer to prayer is a Biblical way of knowing. I believe direct communication with God is something that all Christians should seek and no Christian should discount as irrelevant.

I became a LDS with little to no “direct communication with God.” Based upon my exposure to the church primarily and my exposure to the BOM secondarily (at that time), I believed “Joseph Smith couldn’t do it and the adversary wouldn’t do it.” I still believe this, though after 20 years of study, I believe primarily concerning the BOM and secondarily concerning the church. This is due LARGELY to much more data about the BOM making the BOM more remarkable than I knew 20 years ago.

I seek and continue to seek CERTITUDE. I can conceive of no rational way that 2+2=4 is untrue, but it is not only possible but likely with enough repetitions that someday a true coin uninfluenced by anything could in fact land 20 times in a row on heads. When I weight historical facts, I deal in probabilities. Unstated probabilities, incalculable probabilities, and …, but probabilities. The overwhelming probability that the BOM came from God and what I still consider to be a virtual impossibility that it came through Joseph Smith or some group of men/woman in 1830 timeframe was one day not sufficient for the CERTITUDE I seek. My “dark night of the soul” ensued. I encountered God and over time, came to know via Spiritual witness what I already found so probable was in fact God’s truth not just the product of my rational review of the facts. Today I am still an overly rational person (an engineer with a strong love of math and logic). I told a former nun who was part of my ward 10 years ago that I still believe 90% with my head and only 10% with my heart. She told me she would pray for me. I am not sure if she is right to believe my condition is an ailment requiring God’s cure, but perhaps.

Now, when I referred to the “catholic way of knowing presented by Stephen168,” I mean a weighing of historical facts and probabilities that does not rely upon asking of God in faith for the truth. It is a way I personally find satisfying.

Nobody can experience what I experienced during my “dark night of the soul.” Nobody can experience what St. Thomas Aquinas experienced when he encountered God. When we share the “reason for the hope that is in us” there are things that we can share that are external and things that are internal only.

Based on all the external facts that I have gathered, I can weigh two or more ideas. Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ, is some unity in the essentials version of Protestantism true, did God restore Christianity through Joseph Smith, or ….

LDS and Catholics agree that Christ was the Son of God. That He died and was resurrected. That He choose ancient apostles. That those ancient apostles shared the gospel and choose others to lead and share the gospel.

For Catholicism to be true, there must be an authority present in the Pope that derives from Christ through the apostles (and in alignment with God’s will). For Mormonism to be true, God must have restored an authority that was not present within Catholicism.

It is my position that it is not overly difficult to trace how men chosen by the apostles claimed to be the successors of the apostles when really they were “local leaders.” That we move from Bishops to Metropolitans to Patriarchs and finally to the Pope (not accepted by EO Christians) as power is consolidated in a “closed access society.” It is much harder to explain how someone in 1830’s NY produced the BOM without God’s involvement even acknowledging the problems with the text (along with the evidences for the text).

My historical understanding incorporates God using men to preserve the Bible and the witness of Christ (men like Jerome, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and numerous later Christians). God using men to translate the Bible for all God’s children and initiate a reformation (men like Tyndale, Erasmus, and Luther) and . God helping men move from a “closed access society” to an “open access society” (the reformation being part of this). And God restoring Christianity with public revelation from heaven to Joseph Smith and with the BOM as a rallying point for Christianity.

So, I find that the witness of history makes me a LDS because “Catholic theories” cannot explain the BOM and the restoration well at all, but “LDS theories” can explain the existence of the Catholic Church and the Pope with much less difficulties.

I then add my Spiritual witness to these historical understandings.

With no real response to post #40 and its repeat #49. I am sure that Marie was correct in her post #8.

Thanks for your testimony.

A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.

 

[Horton]

I know y’all are 4 pages into this discussion and off on tangents now, but I wanted to call something out that confused me greatly until I finally understood it.

Catholics are very much for evangelizing people.

Catholics are very much against proselytizing people.

These are two terms most mormons don’t really think much about, and we tend to not know there’s a difference. When we go to the dictionary, we see the words are listed as synonyms to each other, and that confuses us further.

From what I’ve come to understand, to Catholics, the first term is all about getting nonChristians to become Christians. And the second term is all about trying to steal members from other Christian religions and make them Catholic (or, in the other direction, trying to steal members from Catholicism and have them become anything else).

Do I have that right folks? Feel free to correct me if I’m off base somewhere. But this is how I’ve explained the totally positive reaction all the Catholics on this thread have reacted to the OP, and the totally negative reaction y’all tend to have when someone shows up here soundingl like they may be trying to proselytize.

The difference between the two is simple. When Catholics evangelize they are leading/directing/guiding folks to the truth, letting the Holy Spirit work through them. When the LDS proselytize they attempt to tell people their truth is the only truth. They are ambiguous about the details. They push to get people baptized quickly, stating they will learn the rest later.

How would you feel if a Catholic went a primarily LDS forum and tried to proselytize there?

 

[TOmNossor]

This thread isn’t about me. I take these tactics of ad hominem and attempting to poison the well, as you, giving up on providing reasoned arguments.

You are correct. That was inappropriate. I was “poisoning the well” and it was “ad hominem.” I was wrong.
Sorry, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I know y’all are 4 pages into this discussion and off on tangents now, but I wanted to call something out that confused me greatly until I finally understood it.

Catholics are very much for evangelizing people.

Catholics are very much against proselytizing people.

These are two terms most mormons don’t really think much about, and we tend to not know there’s a difference. When we go to the dictionary, we see the words are listed as synonyms to each other, and that confuses us further.

From what I’ve come to understand, to Catholics, the first term is all about getting nonChristians to become Christians. And the second term is all about trying to steal members from other Christian religions and make them Catholic (or, in the other direction, trying to steal members from Catholicism and have them become anything else).

Do I have that right folks? Feel free to correct me if I’m off base somewhere. But this is how I’ve explained the totally positive reaction all the Catholics on this thread have reacted to the OP, and the totally negative reaction y’all tend to have when someone shows up here sounding like they may be trying to proselytize.

I think the words are very similar. Taking some guidance from the USCCB, proselytize has a negative connotation because it includes the idea that you are not OK where you are. The foundational belief of Mormonism is that Catholicism is bad. The “evil” beliefs of the Catholic Church were part of Mormon Doctrine until very recently. The Catholic Church is wrong, is part of Tom’s testimony. So coming to CAF with a great desire to tell Catholics why they are wrong and zero desire for Catholic Answers would not be something Catholics would look forward to.