How to Evangelize Mormons

[Vonsalza]

…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.”

Most were absolutely local in nature. I think Timothy’s see was limited to some small part of Asia Minor. This is a thoroughly “Catholic” position.

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.”

We didn’t “finally” get a Pope. The acceptance of the primacy of the Roman Bishop was universal across Christendom from the earliest days. The Orthodox will readily concede that he was a “first among equals”. This contention was over what that primacy meant. Was it de facto supremacy?

The creation of additional layers of structure was necessitated by the wonderful success of the Church. The headship of the Church simply couldn’t individually lead each and every local Bishop. Christianity got so big that there were just too many of them. Thus they delegated some of the responsibility to Archbishops and Metropolitans - leaders of the Church within regional capitals.

This was not consolidation of power within a closed society. This is simply the hum-drum of managing a huge and growing organization. A successful multinational business must do the same. The Mormons also employ a hierarchial leadership “tree”.

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).

No it isn’t. Mr. Smith was a semi-educated Christian who wanted to “rediscover the true Church” as he saw the unfettered chaos that was the fruit of Protestantism. My wife grew up in a “Restorationist Movement” church that started in Eastern Tennessee at about the same time. “Restorationism” was HOT in 19th century America.
Making their restoration impossible was the common disgust for Catholicism found in the American religious landscape. Everyone back then may have been arguing over who had the true church, but they all agreed on one thing - “It sure as hell wasn’t Catholic”. Their Anglican/Episcopal/Methodist, Lutheran and Puritan fathers at least knew that much.

Mr. Smith wrote an approximation of scripture knowing only what he knew, which is why he mentioned so many things that just didn’t exist like steel, silk and elephants being in pre-Columbian America or there being such a language as “reformed Egyptian”. He didn’t know any better, so they made it into his “word-for-word” “perfect” book.

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…

The restoration requires the failure of the Church. It never happened as Christ put his personal warranty on it. The Gates of Hell itself would never prevail against it. It’s failure-proof.

 

[Stephen168]

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.”

Most were absolutely local in nature. I think Timothy’s see was limited to some small part of Asia Minor. This is a thoroughly “Catholic” position.

We didn’t “finally” get a Pope. The acceptance of the primacy of the Roman Bishop was universal across Christendom from the earliest days.

It is Tom’s testimony that, successors, local leaders, Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and Popes are mutually exclusive. And that the position and meaning of Mormon apostle was the same from the founding of Mormonism.

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

I find your “thank you for your testimony” to be dismissive.
I have a belief based on historical facts that include data from the Old World that aligns with the BOM in ways I find VERY unlikely to happen by chance. Data from the New World that aligns with the BOM in ways I find unlikely to happen by chance. Data associated with the language of the BOM, the production of the BOM, the witnesses of the BOM, and other things. When I see you dismiss what I say as “thank you for your testimony,” I am really confused as to what you think I am saying.
Now, concerning your post #40 and #49. In my mind I have responded well enough, but I will offer a little more.

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

The definition you offered from my church is a good definition of testimony. My point is that receiving divine communication does not eliminate one’s ability to assess historical facts. Most informed LDS do not think the evidence shows that Joseph Smith was not called of God to restore Christianity. I assert together with many informed LDS that the data points to divine interaction in the foundation of the CoJCoLDS.

Are you saying the following is not true?

I am specifically saying that numerous LDS deal in reason untainted by spiritual communication from God. I do not think LDS are bound to walk down the anti-God path of rejecting the (name removed by moderator)ut of spiritual communication, but I have long tried to create separate scales and so have many LDS thinkers.
I am saying that data that anyone can know without God’s help IMO makes a VERY strong case for the restoration of Christianity through Joseph Smith.
This in no way means that knowing via communication with God is wrong or inferior only that it can be complementary.

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

Hopefully I have been clear enough. Faith and reason. Faith alone or reason alone. The conclusion I draw agrees in all three cases.

BUT they do not use reason in regard to Mormonism. They believe is two different truths.

Here is a quote from a LDS scholar:

In one particular area of study I am in a position to offer unique testimony. I have been concerned for sixty years with the topic of the Book of Mormon in relation to the scientific/scholarly picture of ancient America. As a result, I say that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican record, derived ultimately from a native book written in the fourth and fifth centuries AD. More than four hundred elements of the book’s text are written in a manner and display content that cannot be accounted for except by supposing its Mesoamerican origin. Of all the theories of origin for the Book, the only acceptable explanation for how it came to be published in English in 1830 is that offered by Joseph Smith, puzzling though the details may be. No nineteenth-century person could have known enough about ancient Mesoamerican civilization to account for the depth and breadth of the “Mesoamericanisms” the scripture contains. I have documented this position by reference to an extensive archaeological literature. Details are presented in several books, including An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Deseret Book, 1985), Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (Research Press/FARMS, 1998), and Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (in press, 2010).

If you think his use of the term “testimony” means that the data he shares in his books and the conclusions he comes to are driven by some spiritual sentiment and not by “logical positivism” I do not know how Sorenson or I could be more clear.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

We didn’t “finally” get a Pope. The acceptance of the primacy of the Roman Bishop was universal across Christendom from the earliest days. The Orthodox will readily concede that he was a “first among equals”.

Catholic scholars, Father Francis Sullivan (From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church) and Father Robert Eno (The Rise of the Papacy) do not agree with you and neither do I.
LDS scholars James Barker (Apostasy from the Divine Church) and Hugh Nibley (Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity) detail much of the same data Eno and Sullivan use. Eno and Sullivan conclude that the Papacy and the Monoepiscopacy developed and this aligns with God’s will. Barker and Nibley conclude that Apostles and Bishops were different and when there were no more Apostles Bishops became Metropolitans, then Patriarchs then Popes. You can read the history from Catholic or non-Catholic sources, but I do not think it accurate to say that you didn’t “finally get a Pope.”
And no, Stephen168, I am talking about historical data interpreted by me and numerous Catholic scholars. This is not something God told me.
Charity, TOm

 

[Michael85]

You might want to bring up the Book of Abraham.

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates that were written in a language called “Reformed Egyptian”. The plates were since taken back up to heaven, so we have no way of verifying that Smith’s translation is correct.

In 1835, an ancient Egyptian papyrus was purchased from a travelling mummy exhibition. Joseph Smith made a “translation” of the papyrus and said it was about Abraham. No-one could read hieroglyphics at that point, so the translation could not be verified. The book was canonised by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1880 and is part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the sacred texts of the LDS movement.

The papyrus was thought to have vanished in the Chicago fire of 1871, but was rediscovered in 1966. It was translated and found to be an Egyptian funerary text and not at all what Joseph Smith claimed it was. If he couldn’t translate the Book of Abraham correctly, then it is highly doubtful he translated the Book of Mormon either, since he claimed to use the same method for both.

If you want more information on Mormonism and refuting it, the following sites may help:

Utah Lighthouse Ministry
ExMormon.org
Mormonism Research Ministry

Matt Slick’s CARM section on Mormonism is very extensive, but Slick is also very anti-Catholic.

 

[BornInMarch]

I really recommend that you resist this urge.

Unless you are trained and experienced in spreading the faith, and have successfully brought people to Catholicism before, then you might end up doing more harm than good. It would be a shame if you accidentally pushed your friend away from conversion.

 

[Vonsalza]

Catholic scholars, Father Francis Sullivan and Father Robert Eno do not agree with you and neither do I.

Fr. Sullivan’s book states that the episcopacy was virtually without opposition until the protestant rebellion. No surprise there. He’s right. He also rightly posits that the development of hierarchy coincided with the monumental growth of the Church. He’s right again.

Dr. Eno discusses the development of the authority of the Papacy over the early centuries of the Church. It obviously developed and any learned Catholic wouldn’t question that. Even the EO wouldn’t debate Peter’s primacy. What is under debate is what that “primacy” meant.

Again, what isn’t under debate is the existence of a “Pope”. Why was the first two councils in Acts held in Jerusalem then Antioch?
That’s where Peter was.
Why did Paul keep returning to Rome between his journeys?
That’s where Peter was.
Was Paul’s two-week meeting just a “hangout” between two Christian buddies? No. Paul was being confirmed by the established, visible head of the Church. Without it, he would have been yet another false prophet in an age full of them, all claiming “visions” of the Lord.

LDS scholars James Barker and Hugh Nibley detail much of the same data Eno and Sullivan use.

2 Peter 3:14-16 Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace. And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
(Emphasis mine)

The techniques of Hell are as old as the Christianity it molests.

And no, Stephen168, I am talking about historical data interpreted by me and numerous Catholic scholars.

Odd they remain Catholic, no?

And speaking historical data, there is absolutely none for the BoM. Not one city found. Not one record uncovered. Not one shred of Middle-Eastern DNA found in the Central American genome.

The faith required to be fully Mormon is the same irrational faith that will allow a person to believe anything. Absolutely anything at all.

 

[Stephen168]

I find your “thank you for your testimony” to be dismissive.
I have a belief based on historical facts that include data from the Old World that aligns with the BOM in ways I find VERY unlikely to happen by chance. Data from the New World that aligns with the BOM in ways I find unlikely to happen by chance. Data associated with the language of the BOM, the production of the BOM, the witnesses of the BOM, and other things. When I see you dismiss what I say as “thank you for your testimony,” I am really confused as to what you think I am saying.

Your testimony is based on your faith; as defined by the Mormon Church. Only Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is true. You mis-interpret non-Mormon writers to conform to your preconceived testimony.
You have misunderstood, and presented false conclusions from:
Francis Sullivan
Thomas Aquinas
Michael Coe
Francis de Sales
Pew Research
Harold Bloom
Margaret Barker
David Waltz
Jordan Vajda
Lynn Ridenhower
Justin Martyr
Leo Donald Davis

It is your faith, so all I really can say is: Thanks.

 

[TOmNossor]

Odd they remain Catholic, no?

Thanks for asking. It is not odd at all. You see they bring their FAITH to their historical assessment. You might even call it there testimony.

Here are the words of Father Sullivan:
Father Sullivan:

The Catholic belief that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution is based on a combination of historical evidence and theological reflection. Since theology, by definition, is “faith seeking understanding,” theological reflection will necessarily presuppose faith. The reflection I propose is based on belief that Christ founded the church, that he continues to guide it through the abiding gift of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit maintains the Church in the true faith.

There are simply too many holes in the narrative to say that it is the read of the data based upon REASON and not faith. And Father Sullivan honestly offers this truth.

I remember reading 1st Clement and much to my SURPRISE screaming, “He doesn’t even know he is Pope.” Then I read Ignatius and I was similarly surprised. This was not what I expected and was not necessary for the Restoration, but it was what I saw.

I believe the BOA is from God and that somehow the mess that is its production is explainable, but this is a product of my faith. I do not think reasoning about the BOA in ISOLATION from the rest of the restoration would result in this conclusion.

So, not only do I deny the accusation levied by Stephen168, I suggest that Father Sullivan admits that it is his faith that leads to his narrative of the historical data and to his Catholicism.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Now, concerning your post #40 and #49. In my mind I have responded well enough, but I will offer a little more.

The definition you offered from my church is a good definition of testimony.

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.

…

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.

…

Therefore, Post #8 is in fact true.

 

[NeuroTypical]

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.

What about when LDS evangelize and Catholics proselytize? Or is this some sort of a “the members of our church are all correct and perfect, and yours are all bad and wrong” thing?

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

Well, both catholic.com and mormonhub.com have similar forum rules about such things. Then again, mormondialogue.org is all about debate and persuasion - they don’t care at all when Catholics show up to argue their case.

 

[Fiasco]

What about** when LDS evangelize** and Catholics proselytize?..

A bit off topic, but:
Trying to get straight answers from LDS missionaries on certain fundamental/critical issues is impossible. They seem to be highly trained in American sales techniques, and can’t be pinned down to give honest answers. In many cases, they pretend to agree with what a non-LDS is saying, when, in fact, they certainly do not! i know that from very recent experience.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Here is a quote from a LDS scholar:

In my case “a testimony” was not something I had to acquire at a given moment as a response to “doubts.” As far as I can recall, there was never a time from my earliest years growing up in Smithfield, a village in northern Utah, that I did not have an assurance that the gospel I was taught was from God and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the result of divine intervention in the life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Yes, He made the data conform to his childhood testimony. I have also pointed out in the past how Sorenson led his reader to false conclusions about other scholars, like you have done. It can be very “faith promoting” but it is not true. Faith over reason.

And no, Stephen168, I am talking about historical data interpreted by me and numerous Catholic scholars. This is not something God told me.

Yes, you interpret data and Catholic scholars to conform to what God told you. Faith over reason.
Mormon Poster:

There is no substitute–NONE–for two things. First, read the Book of Mormon. Second, pray to know if it is true,….

 

[RebeccaJ]

What about when LDS evangelize and Catholics proselytize? Or is this some sort of a “the members of our church are all correct and perfect, and yours are all bad and wrong” thing?

Well, both catholic.com and mormonhub.com have similar forum rules about such things. Then again, mormondialogue.org is all about debate and persuasion - they don’t care at all when Catholics show up to argue their case.

Pope Francis has taught more than once the proselytizing is wrong. I read a document that listed the issues with proselytizing. It included targeting Christians, but the main gist was tactics that don’t respect the faith and beliefs of another, which generally fall under not respecting the dignity of another.

Evangelization is rooted in Latin roughly meaning to spread the Good News. Christianizing is how Catholics view evangelization. Christianizing Christians is not evangelization. Second, one does not spread the Good News of Jesus Christ by taking approaches that are against what Jesus taught. Coercion is off the table. Coercion includes hiding teachings, telling half truths or just plain lying.

 

[Vonsalza]

Thanks for asking. It is not odd at all. You see they bring their FAITH to their historical assessment. You might even call it there testimony.

At least they have SOME verifiable history to which they can bind their faith. Not one pre-Columbian, uniquely Mormon settlement found yet. Pre-1492 Catholic/Jewish sites? A far shorter list would be the of the sites NOT found.

I remember reading 1st Clement and much to my SURPRISE screaming, “He doesn’t even know he is Pope.”

As only one authentic writing from Clement survives, I’m not sure Fr. Sullivan can factually make that assertion. I’m sure many Catholic priests and scholars would disagree.

It’s historical fact that the title wouldn’t be used for another 100 years - about 225 AD or so. What’s also a fact was that the Chair of Peter was implored to solve the disputes in Corinth during Clement’s Papacy. He professed that the Bishops appointed by the Apostles had authority over the unfailing Church.

He arbitrated the dispute because it was he who sat in Peter’s Chair. He was a “Pope” before the title developed. I’m not sure any Catholic would have a problem with this.

---

In seriousness, doesn’t it bug you that virtually nothing unique to Mormonism that existed prior to Smith is materially verifiable?

 

[Melchior_1]

We’ve had Mormons come to our home, and have engaged in discussions with them. We have found that they were much more receptive to hearing my “reversion” story involving Eucharistic Adoration and the feelings I had therein versus the more academic-oriented journey my wife’s conversion story was. So in our case, they were more receptive to the emotive than the rational.

 

[jas84173]

Mormons aren’t evangelizable. They are taught anything against their beliefs comes from the devil, and also they have no fathom of church history. They were fed lies about The BOM when it is so obviously fake. I read it and I swear to God Joseph Smith couldn’t stop himself from saying “it came to pass”. The Book is a forgery, The View of the Hebrews" which was published five years before is basically the same story. Might as well call that scripture since it came first, difference the author wrote it as fiction. Pretty sure if the BOM was true there’d be some archeological sites found. And oh yah anachronisms such as animals and weapons that didn’t even exist in the Americas at the time wouldn’t be present. It’s all so ridiculous, plus why do they accept the New Testament which was decided on by the Church if an apostasy happened after the Apostles died? I mean how can they trust bishops from the 5th century on what is scripture and what is Not? Talking to them is like talking to a little kid who just contradicts themselves. It’s kind of funny but also kind of sad. Just pray for them. They follow a false prophet. Jesus warned us about them. Many heresies have come and gone in the history of the Church. Mormonism and JW are probably the worst heresies right now but the Church is Gods and always prevails.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Hi jas84173, I’m one of “them” that you’re referring to.

I can’t say I really appreciate the uncharitable way you’re portraying me and mine here. I mean, you don’t even know me, yet you pronounce me not evangelizable? You insult my knowledge of church history?

I’d hope if you took the time to actually talk to me, rather than talking about me, the experience would be a bit more than “talking to a little kid who just contradicts themselves”.

Not feeling any Christlike love here, friend…

 

[jas84173]

Hi jas84173, I’m one of “them” that you’re referring to.

I can’t say I really appreciate the uncharitable way you’re portraying me and mine here. I mean, you don’t even know me, yet you pronounce me not evangelizable? You insult my knowledge of church history?

I’d hope if you took the time to actually talk to me, rather than talking about me, the experience would be a bit more than “talking to a little kid who just contradicts themselves”.

Not feeling any Christlike love here, friend…

Jesus Christ did not establish his Church just to let it fadeaway and then restore it by some boy in upstate New York. It is insulting to the martyrs who died for the faith throughout the ages, it is heresy man. Seriously I talked to Mormon missionaries once and they sweet tooth everything but when you ask them serious questions that probably makes them confused they just change the topic and say I know it’s true. Blah blah. And missionaries aren’t even aloud to read anything that you present to them which are legitimate questions. I brought the Mormonism book by Catholic Answers which by the way is not insulting to their faith at all but respectful and just brings up issues with the beliefs. The one I find the most ironic is Mormons claim and apostasy happened after the last Apostle died. Funny because Idsay the same thing happened to the Mormon church. You do know 11 of the witnesses left the Church and began publishing all of the lies Smith told and Smith shut it down leading to his arrest for oppression to free speech in Nauvoo? And then the prophet shoots at people. I never remember any prophets in the Bible shooting at people. They were fine with rejection and death. Read Jeremiah. Paul tells us that even if an angel proclaims a different gospel let that one be accursed. The part that made me laugh the most reading the BOM was when it quotes stuff from Pauls letters yet in the time period of the BOM it was 200 years before Paul was even alive. Seriously man, think! I’m not trying to be rude but sometimes it needs to be laid out straight to us. It is a heresy. The Catholic church has made mistakes in the past but we are human. God’s Church has corrected itself. No apostasy ever occurred. And Isaiah says there are no God’s besides me. If he is aware that he was just a mortal at one time and other God’s exist, why lie? And why is The Book of Abraham translated as just a funeral dialogue talking about the Egyptian God Isis? Come on buddy…

 

[Peter_J]

What about when LDS evangelize and Catholics proselytize?

Hey don’t make me come over there!