Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
So priests can’t make mistakes or be forgiven for them, I did not know that, thanks.
Seems to me you should save the bile until you’ve at the least read the book.
Is Isaiah Bennett, author of "Inside Mormonism," truthful in his books and articles on Mormonism?
- Status
Seems to me you should save the bile until you’ve at the least read the book.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
The book is not an exposé, but a thoughtful report on what Isaiah Bennett found “Inside Mormonism.” The subtitle of the book is “What Mormons Really Believe.”
It was Karl Keating,.founder of Catholic Answers, who asked Bennett to write the book. Catholic Answers is the publisher. As Bennett says, “This work aims to be a comprehensive presentation of Mormon teachings, accompanied by orthodox Catholic critique. I write from first-hand knowledge and experience. Why I have written this book is best summed up by Peter: ‘You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away the the error of lawless men and lose your own stability’ (2 Pet. 3:17, RSV).”
And “My prayer is that my experience and writings may stand in reparation for my acts against faith and charity. If they can enlighten readers to be beauty and truth of the Catholic faith and alert them to the dangers of Mormonism, then God will have brought something good from my sojourn.”
“This work is in reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus” appears on the dedication page,
Jim Dandy
It was Karl Keating,.founder of Catholic Answers, who asked Bennett to write the book. Catholic Answers is the publisher. As Bennett says, “This work aims to be a comprehensive presentation of Mormon teachings, accompanied by orthodox Catholic critique. I write from first-hand knowledge and experience. Why I have written this book is best summed up by Peter: ‘You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away the the error of lawless men and lose your own stability’ (2 Pet. 3:17, RSV).”
And “My prayer is that my experience and writings may stand in reparation for my acts against faith and charity. If they can enlighten readers to be beauty and truth of the Catholic faith and alert them to the dangers of Mormonism, then God will have brought something good from my sojourn.”
“This work is in reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus” appears on the dedication page,
Jim Dandy
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
There’s a difference between “making a mistake” and deliberately breaking the permanent vows of the priesthood. And I never said that Isaiah Bennett shouldn’t be forgiven. I just said, “He’s not the best spokesman.” There’s a pretty big difference between those two sentiments. If you want to pretend like there isn’t, go ahead. But don’t put those words in my mouth, 'cause I never came anywhere close to saying them.
Love that you pulled out “bile,” though. “Save the bile, man!” Internet has been policed. Thank God you’re here, Z. Thank God you’re here.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
For Mormons, a priest breaking his vows and leaving for Mormonism is a conversion-to-Mormonism story that is going to be used to its full PR extent. Mormons target Catholics for conversion and will use tools such as a priest converting to try to convince other Catholics of their falsehoods. With the publication of this book, the Mormon PR machine can no longer use him.
It is a good thing, and right, that he wrote this book. Even if all it does is create a skepticism regarding his reasoning ability, such as you have, at least it is not Catholics hanging on the every word of a priest who went wandering, and thinking he was onto something.
It is a good thing, and right, that he wrote this book. Even if all it does is create a skepticism regarding his reasoning ability, such as you have, at least it is not Catholics hanging on the every word of a priest who went wandering, and thinking he was onto something.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Thanks for the link, Paul! I had no idea that Fawn Brodie, author of No Man Knows my History, The Life of Joseph Smith, was the niece of David O. McKay!!! Her biography of Smith was most interesting. Betcha ‘Uncle David’ didn’t like it much.
Jim Dandy
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Why not. Does that not speak to how powerful the LDS message can be when it is used “deceptively” as you agree.
The first part of his book IS his story about leaving the faith, what he found to be attractive about the LDS faith, and about how - as he became immersed in it - he began to realize its inconsistencies and flaws. I’m not sure why you equate leaving the priesthood with a lack of credibility. He agrees that his decision to leave the priesthood was terrible. His book is very clear on that point. In a very powerful way, he was the prodigal son. And the book does make the point that he lost a great deal by leaving the priesthood and the Church in the first place. But I don’t see why that somehow disqualifies him from telling his story and making his points about why, ultimately, he rejected the LDS faith.
It is very much a cautionary tale as well as a description of the doctrines and practices that, ultimately, Bennett could not accept. You really need to read the book before you start making declarations about what it is and what it is not.
Do you really believe that writing and promoting the book cannot be - in itself - an act of penance? Maybe you would not choose to write a book, but we all are different. His talents lay in the area of writing, so he wrote the book as a warning to others about his own experiences “inside Mormonism.”
I think that if you are going to spend some of your “time on Earth” making sweeping accusations about a book and its author, you should read it first. That’s all I’m saying.
Peace,
Robert
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
You know what? Maybe that’s it. I don’t find the LDS message to be “powerful” in the slightest. LDS theology is so shifting, unclear and conflicted that I honestly don’t understand how anyone could wind up as a member of the LDS faith unless they were either born into it, or converted after having grown up with no religious background at all.
However, it is even more baffling to me that a Catholic priest - not a seminarian, a priest - would fall for that nonsense. I’m the furthest thing from a theologian - literally, I have not taken one single formal class on Catholic theology in my life - and yet even I can tell that Mormon doctrine conflicts with the very first sentence of the Book of Genesis. That should be a pretty big red flag to anyone who is even remotely familiar with Catholic theology.
So it is utterly inconceivable to me how anyone with any amount of formal Catholic theological training could ever be “seduced” by the LDS message. That points to either a complete up-and-down-the-chain-of-command failure of the admission, formation and graduation processes of whatever seminary he joined, or a severely underdeveloped conscience on Bennett’s part, or both (which is probably most likely). To me, that’s the story of Isaiah Bennett. How in God’s holy name did we ever produce a priest who would fall for that nonsense?
Leaving the priesthood for the love of a woman? I get that. Love, lust and romance are ridiculously powerful forces. Leaving the priesthood because of an addiction to drugs or alcohol? I get that too. But leaving the priesthood for the LDS faith? Huh?
To me, the story that should be written is Inside Isaiah Bennett’s Seminary: What The Heck Went Wrong? Let’s maybe start with that cautionary tale, and see if they can stop turning out priests who are, objectively speaking, not ready to fulfill the obligation of their vocation. Let’s get that house in order before we move on to throwing stones at someone else’s.
All I said was that it’s probably not “primarily” a cautionary tale about leaving the Catholic priesthood as much as it is an “insider’s account” of what goes on behind the closed doors of Mormon temples. I have not said that there are not two accounts, or two sections, in the book. All I’m saying is that the “primary” account in the book is the one where Bennett details LDS theology.
You’ve read the book. It’s called Inside Mormonism. The subtitle is What Mormons Really Believe. There’s a picture of a Mormon Temple on the cover. Are you really going to tell me that the book is not primarily (not exclusively) an account of… er, what Mormons really believe? Really?
I do believe it can be an act of penance. I just don’t think it’s the best one. That is my opinion. Which I thought I’d share. You know, in a forum where we all share our opinions.
Yes, thus far my “sweeping generalizations” have been:
- “I’m sure Isaiah Bennett is a nice guy.”
- He is, perhaps, not the best spokesman.
I just find this kind of thing weirdly tribal. Like Bennett’s re-conversion “proves” something about Catholicism and also about the LDS faith. It doesn’t. Catholicism was true before Bennett flaked out the first time. It contained the same fullness of truth before he saw the light and came back. And it will still contain no less truth if, God forbid, Mr. Bennett wakes up tomorrow morning and decides to become Orthodox.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Not unheard of google Jordan Vajda, an ordained Catholic priest who converted to LDS, as a Catholic he wrote a thesis on theosis vs exhaltation that was fair to both ideas. He converted after that. Or Marilyn Shuster a former Catholic nun who along with her husband converted the LDS church.
Since he’s actually read the book, he strikes me as a bit more qualified to say what it’s about, particularly in comparison to the assertions of someone who hasn’t read it, and seems to have their own “ax to grind”
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
Excellent. I’m happy to let Robert weigh in on that one: Is the book Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe primarily an account of what Mormons really believe? What say you, Robert?Since he’s actually read the book, he strikes me as a bit more qualified to say what it’s about, particularly in comparison to the assertions of someone who hasn’t read it, and seems to have their own “ax to grind”
And exactly what ax do I have to grind? By all means, enlighten me.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
"Crdl2Grv:
Crdl2Grv:
Crdl2Grv:
Crdl2Grv:
Peace,
Robert
(1)
(2)
You’ve said much more about the book you’ve never read and the author you do not know than: (1) he’s a nice guy; and (2) he’s not the best spokesman. You’ve come to some very sweeping conclusions about him and the book - apparently without looking beyond the cover. My point is that your critique, which I concede you have every right to make on these forums, is not well informed.
I’m not going to ban you. I just don’t think your crticism of the author and his book is fair.
I agree that the truths of Catholicism do not stand or fall based upon Mr. Bennett’s chosen religion. But that’s not the position taken in his book. Bennett is not saying that Catholicism is right and Mormonism is wrong based on his reconversion. He is simply laying out his reasons for returning to the Catholic faith after learning what Mormonism really teaches to those in its ranks. An underlying point is that the LDS Church can be very persuasive if you are not careful, because they certainly were capable of converting even a priest who was taught the faith more deeply than the average Catholic. While I will concede that you certainly would not fall prey to Mormon missionaries - God bless you - it is simply a fact that many Catholics have fallen for some slick LDS packaging, hence the need for the book. If not for you, then for those of us who may come across more persuasive LDS persons, the book is a helpful tool.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
It’s Bennett’s description of what Mormons tell people before they join the LDS Church, and what people are taught once they join. The story is told from his own personal experiences and studies. It is not a “kiss-and-tell” sort of book, although Bennett does describe the temple ceremonies and how they were not very satisfying. Most of the book addresses LDS doctrines that are not “secret” per se, but they are kept from new and potential converts until after they have mentally, emotionally, and spiritually committed to the LDS Church.
I think you need to enlighten the rest of us on this one. It seems that you are very quick to judge this man’s motives, his sincerity, and his credibility, although you haven’t even read his book. It seems like you’re almost making it personal. What say you?
Peace,
Robert
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
So that’s a “yes,” then. It is primarily about what Mormon’s believe. I cannot imagine how I managed to guess that. Must have been crazy luck. Broken clocks and all…
I stand by all the criticisms I’ve made. I think Isaiah Bennett himself would have to admit that his moral conscience was poorly developed when he chose to leave the priesthood. I don’t see how anyone can dispute that - especially now that Mr. Bennett has, thankfully, chosen to rejoin the Church. That’s not a global critique of Bennett’s entire being, nor a judgment on the totality of his life. That’s why I said that his conscience “was” poorly formed “when he chose to leave the priesthood.” If you think that’s some kind of ad hominem attack on a man’s character, so be it. Please, though, explain to me how Bennett’s moral conscience wasn’t poorly formed when he chose to leave the priesthood.
I’d also argue that I’m on pretty safe ground when I say that Bennett’s seminary was ineffective in its priestly formation in this case. If it were effective, he wouldn’t have left the priesthood. Furthermore, I’d think we all can agree that the recent history of Catholic seminaries in the United States demonstrates some widespread problems. Thankfully, they appear to be on the road to redemption, so to speak. But if you ask me, “What’s Wrong With Our Seminaries?” is a much more interesting, relevant and infinitely more important topic to the future of the Catholic Church in the United states than “What Do Those Weirdos Do Behind Closed Doors?”
So really, I’m questioning the credibility of the entire genre of this kind of literature. I just don’t find “Former Disciple Tell-All” books all that persuasive, and I’d think anyone who has an even elementary knowledge of Catholic history in the United States would understand that we Catholic, of all people, should be pretty hesitant to embrace this kind of stuff.
But don’t take my word for it, take Karl Keating’s:
Code:
"These are the books—written by disaffected ex-Catholics or by people who never have been Catholic but who have made their mark in the world by pushing unadorned bigotry—from which Boettner gets his juiciest information. Relying on them for the straight story on the Catholic Church is like relying on a political candidate to tell you all the good points about his opponent. . . .
Now it may well be that a man leaving one religion for another can write fairly, without bitterness, about the one he left behind. But it stands to reason that most people who suddenly think they have an urge to write about their change of beliefs just want to vent their frustrations or justify their actions. Their books should be read and used with discretion, and they should not be used at all as explanations of the beliefs of their old religion if the books betray the least hint of rancor."Huh. Weird.
Stephen168
New member
Ad hominem is an attempt to link a man’s character to his ideas or arguments. It may or may not be a logical fallacy but is usually. You have attacked the author’s character without even trying to link one of his ideas, so I would not call it an ad hominem attack; I would call it an attack on his character plain and simple. You would have to have read his book to know his ideas, story, and arguments in order to link them to anything.
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
So if someone asked Isaiah Bennett if his moral conscience was poorly formed when he chose to leave the priesthood, you’re 100% sure he would say, “No?” Because I’m just as sure that he’d say, “Yes.”
Stephen168
New member
And has absolutely nothing at all to do with the subject of this thread. Charity anyone?
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
You may be right. The condition of his moral conscience when he chose to leave the priesthood might be irrelevant. I disagree, but that’s obviously a matter of opinion about which people of good faith can differ.
However, “that’s irrelevant” a very different criticism than “that’s an attack on the man’s character,” which was your previous point. I assume by your failure to answer my questions that you agree but don’t want to publicly admit that yes, Isaiah Bennett would probably agree that his moral conscience was not properly formed when he chose to leave the priesthood.
So here’s my next question: If a man agrees with a specific criticism of his actions, can that criticism really be called an “attack” on that man’s character? If the subject agrees with the substance of the criticism, isn’t it less an “attack” and more an “accurate assessment?”
Irrelevant? Possibly. Inaccurate? Sorry, no.
However, “that’s irrelevant” a very different criticism than “that’s an attack on the man’s character,” which was your previous point. I assume by your failure to answer my questions that you agree but don’t want to publicly admit that yes, Isaiah Bennett would probably agree that his moral conscience was not properly formed when he chose to leave the priesthood.
So here’s my next question: If a man agrees with a specific criticism of his actions, can that criticism really be called an “attack” on that man’s character? If the subject agrees with the substance of the criticism, isn’t it less an “attack” and more an “accurate assessment?”
Irrelevant? Possibly. Inaccurate? Sorry, no.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Bennett was hospitalized with severe clinical depression shortly before leaving the priesthood and embracing Mormonism. He merely reports this, but does not use it – or anything – as an excuse. He holds himself alone accountable. But those who are judging him should be aware of it. Read the book, please.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Silly Jimmy! No need to read the book, just read the title and look at the cover picture, it’s all there no need to be bothered with all that reading stuff.
Stephen168
New member
I will not answer your question because it would be uncharitable and gossip because I don’t know Isaiah Bennett. If you are a lifelong friend of his and have his permission to discuss his action, then carry on. If not, read his book and we can discuss it.
Stephen168
New member
Or the reasoning:Silly Jimmy! No need to read the book, just read the title and look at the cover picture, it’s all there no need to be bothered with all that reading stuff.
The earth does not rotate around the sun because Nicolaus Copernicus kicked my dog.
- Status