To clarify, my argument against Mormonism is bit based on sins on an individual leader; my argument against Mormonism is based on the sins of its “founder.” This is a critical distinction. If Mormonism’s founder cannot be trusted, the entire church is built on lies.JaminB,
I would never weight my argument against a denomination primarily on the sins of an individual leader. This line of attack leaves your flank wide open. Instead, focus on the fruits of the tree. “For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.”
I don’t think your argument holds merit since smith was just the first leader of his Christian church/denomination. Wasn’t he just a regular guy who prayed and received revelation?To clarify, my argument against Mormonism is bit based on sins on an individual leader; my argument against Mormonism is based on the sins of its “founder.” This is a critical distinction. If Mormonism’s founder cannot be trusted, the entire church is built on lies.
I fully expect individual popes, prophets, preachers to be sinful–this doesn’t disturb me too much. It’s the foundation that I’m concerned with.
Actually, there is more to it than that.I don’t think your argument holds merit since smith was just the first leader of his Christian church/denomination. Wasn’t he just a regular guy who prayed and received revelation?
How is that different than a Pope? Surely you see that your argument can apply to the church leader in power, and there are no freebies just because you were not the first Pope.
Hi Theo.I don’t think your argument holds merit since smith was just the first leader of his Christian church/denomination. Wasn’t he just a regular guy who prayed and received revelation?
How is that different than a Pope? Surely you see that your argument can apply to the church leader in power, and there are no freebies just because you were not the first Pope.
No, Smith was not “just” the first leader of his religion. He was the founder, the author/translator of its primary scriptures, and the one who introduced nearly all of its peculiar practices. Also, I wouldn’t characterize Mormonism as a Christian denomination–it is its own religion in many ways. As such, its founder’s character matters in the same way that L. Ron Hubbard’s character matters to Scientology and that Muhammed’s character matters to Islam.I don’t think your argument holds merit since smith was just the first leader of his Christian church/denomination. Wasn’t he just a regular guy who prayed and received revelation?
Please pay attention JaminB,No, Smith was not “just” the first leader of his religion. He was the founder, the author/translator of its primary scriptures, and the one who introduced nearly all of its peculiar practices. Also, I wouldn’t characterize Mormonism as a Christian denomination–it is its own religion in many ways. As such, its founder’s character matters in the same way that L. Ron Hubbard’s character matters to Scientology and that Muhammed’s character matters to Islam.
Have you read Grant Palmer’s book An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins?No, Smith was not “just” the first leader of his religion. He was the founder, the author/translator of its primary scriptures, and the one who introduced nearly all of its peculiar practices. Also, I wouldn’t characterize Mormonism as a Christian denomination–it is its own religion in many ways. As such, its founder’s character matters in the same way that L. Ron Hubbard’s character matters to Scientology and that Muhammed’s character matters to Islam.
As a recent convert to Christianity, I can tell you the character of the founder does matter immensely. If Jesus never rose from the dead, why should I believe a word He had to say? If Jesus never rose from the dead, He was either a fraud or a lunatic. I believe He did rise from the dead, so I believe what He and His apostles had to say.Please pay attention JaminB,
I never said his character didn’t matter, I said it’s a weak point upon which to focus your criticism with your family, and suggested you focus on the fruits. As a Catholic your flank is wide open when you focus on foibles of leadership. Non-Catholics will not agree with the distinction you raised that the character of the first leader is what really matters…
The comparison would be with Simon Peter, not Jesus.As a recent convert to Christianity, I can tell you the character of the founder does matter immensely. If Jesus never rose from the dead, why should I believe a word He had to say? If Jesus never rose from the dead, He was either a fraud or a lunatic. I believe He did rise from the dead, so I believe what He and His apostles had to say.
Joseph Smith’s relative trustworthiness is vital to the truth claims of the LDS church. If he lied about being able to find treasure through a peep stone, on what basis should I believe the final version of his First Vision where he claimed to see God the Father and Jesus Christ?
I read all of the posts too. I used to be a believing Mormon. Smith’s moral character, once known, can be the ‘magic pill’ that sways believers to be non-believers. Not only is it my experience, but it is the experience of countless other ex-Mormons.The comparison would be with Simon Peter, not Jesus.
And read the posts again, I’m responding on a request for advice to engage family members. Non-Catholics have a tendency not to excuse the Catholic Popes and Priests for their very human weaknesses. I agree smith’s character is a weakness to be discussed, but it’s not the magic pill people are implying it should be in swaying a believer.
I don’t think you understand Joseph Smith’s role at all. If Smith is a fraud then the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham (already proven to be a fraud), and basically their entire belief system is drawn into question. Peter was not the founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus was. Smith, on the other hand, was the founder of the LDS church and so his trustworthiness is all important. No one is picking on some past president or quorum member. There is a huge difference here. It is an important question.The comparison would be with Simon Peter, not Jesus.
And read the posts again, I’m responding on a request for advice to engage family members. Non-Catholics have a tendency not to excuse the Catholic Popes and Priests for their very human weaknesses. I agree smith’s character is a weakness to be discussed, but it’s not the magic pill people are implying it should be in swaying a believer.
You clearly did not read the posts since I explained why a Catholic was exposed in making the attack and I suggested he focus on the “fruits of the tree”. I’m sure there are plenty of posts that delve into church financials and charity activity. I’m not familiar with any soup kitchens run by Mormons, for example.I read all of the posts too. I used to be a believing Mormon. Smith’s moral character, once known, can be the ‘magic pill’ that sways believers to be non-believers. Not only is it my experience, but it is the experience of countless other ex-Mormons.
If it is fruitless to discuss Joseph Smith’s character (or lack thereof), pray tell, what would you advise? All you are doing is telling the OP what not to do. Why not advise what he should do?
Do you realize that popes and Mormon prophets are not really all that comparable in role and function?
Focusing on the fruits of either church won’t get you very far with a Mormon. In the mind of a Mormon, a Catholic would be more ‘exposed’ on the fruits rather than focusing on the founders (and BTW, Jesus Christ is the founder of the Catholic Church, not Simon Peter). All the charity work performed by Catholics would be ignored since the Catholic Church is considered apostate. The focus would then be on things like priest abuse, the Inquisition and the Crusades, ignoring (or being completely ignorant of) the more unsavory parts of LDS church history.You clearly did not read the posts since I explained why a Catholic was exposed in making the attack and I suggested he focus on the “fruits of the tree”. I’m sure there are plenty of posts that delve into church financials and charity activity. I’m not familiar with any soup kitchens run by Mormons, for example.
From my reading, most people who leave the mormon church after learning about their church history are not becoming Catholic (I assumed it was the ultimate goal), they are avoiding all religion.
The trouble with many of Smith’s “revelations” was that they were self serving. He claimed it was revealed that he should marry (be given sexual access) many young ladies, the daughters of his followers and even very young girls he took in as wards. He claimed that “plural marriage” a euphemism for adultery, was a revelation and that everyone should practice it. He claimed a revelation that his followers were to build a home for him and his family. When a person makes such claims their character comes into play. He is nothing more than a corrupt televangelist, who managed to convince others to give him their money, daughters and wives. He taught that what is evil is good, perpetuating adultery among his followers. What sort of husband “marries” another woman and then “marries” that woman’s daughter too, sounds like something from a porn movie. Smith is an 1800’s Jerry Springer wannabe. Yes his character counts, for what it is worth.I don’t think your argument holds merit since smith was just the first leader of his Christian church/denomination. Wasn’t he just a regular guy who prayed and received revelation?
How is that different than a Pope? Surely you see that your argument can apply to the church leader in power, and there are no freebies just because you were not the first Pope.
I understand your feeling that your family needs you to respect their beliefs. By that, you mean, their right to beliefs not your own. There is so much about Smith that no one with open eyes would see him as anything but a fraud. However, a fanatical believer does not see with open eyes. That is why they need prayer, as well as rational argument. I will pray my poor sad prayers for your success as you love your family. Demand this of God, based on your sonship and your love for your family. He will not refuse a persistent prayer. Use the valuable evidence of this thread and the CAF but remember only God can open the eyes of those who do not want to see.Paul,
I know. I know. But my wife and daughter are trapped in the Mormon faith and I’m trying to respect that choice just as I expect them to respect my choice to be Catholic. My disrespect towards Mormonism, of which there is plenty, has only pushed them further into it. I am trying now to write a letter/essay that will at least explain my view at its most fundamental (the untrustworthiness of JS). I doubt they will hear me, but I feel moved to try. Mormonism has damaged my family so much, I’m just trying to repair it with the grace of god as best I can.
This is true. For me and for countless other ex-Mormons, the first thing that brought the LDS house of cards tumbling down was discovering the true behavior and character of Joseph Smith, Jr. and realizing that the LDS church had lied to us about Joseph Smith, his conduct, his cheating on- and lying to his wife Emma, his shameful offering of godhood to parents in trade for the virginity of their very young daughters, his attempted wife-swapping, his affairs with married women and his disobedience to the very “scriptures” he revealed (see D&C 132) - Joseph violated every one of the “revelation’s” restrictions on the practice of polygamy and broke several commandments of the Mosaic law in the process.I read all of the posts too. I used to be a believing Mormon. Smith’s moral character, once known, can be the ‘magic pill’ that sways believers to be non-believers. Not only is it my experience, but it is the experience of countless other ex-Mormons.
If it is fruitless to discuss Joseph Smith’s character (or lack thereof), pray tell, what would you advise? All you are doing is telling the OP what not to do. Why not advise what he should do?
Do you realize that popes and Mormon prophets are not really all that comparable in role and function?
Then Smith loses. First, Peter never was a convicted con man. Peter never lied about visions, Peter never was caught with adultery, or scammed folks in a bank Scandal.The comparison would be with Simon Peter, not Jesus.
And read the posts again, I’m responding on a request for advice to engage family members. Non-Catholics have a tendency not to excuse the Catholic Popes and Priests for their very human weaknesses. I agree smith’s character is a weakness to be discussed, but it’s not the magic pill people are implying it should be in swaying a believer.
Maybe.JaminB,
I would never weight my argument against a denomination primarily on the sins of an individual leader. This line of attack leaves your flank wide open. Instead, focus on the fruits of the tree. “For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.”
I’m pretty sure every Christian denomination believes God can/will speak to you in one form or another. I also think most have stories of visitation by Angels or other surrogates.Maybe.
But it COULD work when the “leaders” of one group claim they talk to God face to face as the lds leaders do