Mormonism help.

[MrIsla]

my dear friends. i have been strugling with a problem for it seems 4ever. fortunately, my father is a catholic, but unfortunately my mother is a mormon. i have never really had a problem with this. but as i have grown up. i have realized mormonism is invalid. but when the missionaries come to my door. they always beat me

not like i was trying to. but more importantly. i can’t summarize to my self why mormonism is wrong? i know catholicism is valid and the only church. but how do i know mormonism is wrong?

thank you. and god bless

 

[ConallCernach]

You could read over some of this stuff:

www.mrm.org

 

[survive]

Mormonism is based on the prophecies of Joseph Smith. He changed his doctrine many times, and of those who first claimed to have seen the source of his information, most recanted. He started with the assumption that the Church founded by Jesus died out before any records could be made and wasn’t brought back until the 19th Century. This contradicts Jesus’ statement that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church. They redefine the Trinity in a way that contradicts the Biblical teaching that there is just one God.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Please, please please … I am NOT insulting your parents, but I do not see how they could have been true to their faiths & still been married. It makes no since to me at all what-so-ever.

But to your question. If mormonism is true, then our god is not much of a god because he only has one planet. All mormon men
are priests, right? And all priest can become gods, right?

Jesus & the devil are brothers … blood brothers. right? which is a lie.

Satian is an angel, a creation. Jesus, on the other hand, is GOD. One of the Holy Trinity.

That is my take, other members here may have more things to add.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

He started with the assumption that the Church founded by Jesus died out before any records could be made and wasn’t brought back until the 19th Century.

BINGO. Jesus is a FAILURE!
THAT is what Mormonism is FOUNDED upon…but they don’t realize it. ONCE you realize it, and it strikes your heart, that’s it, there is no looking back. If the Church Jesus established (His Body) DIED OFF almost suddenly after He Ascended, then that is calling Jesus a lousy builder and a failure…there is no “nice” way to put it. An 1800 year power outage is unacceptable.

Here is another good thread showing some serious errors in their theology:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=261486

 

[DavidFilmer]

i know catholicism is valid and the only church. but how do i know mormonism is wrong?

Focus ONLY on the Mormon doctrine of the Great (or Total) Apostasy. If the Mormons are correct about this then their religion is also correct. If they are wrong, their religion is also wrong. Every single aspect of the Mormon faith clings to this doctrine.

There is NO other Mormon doctrine that means a fig if they are wrong about the Great Apostasy.

If they are wrong about the Apsotasy then…

• It doesn’t matter what Joseph Smith said - he’s a fraud - period.
• It doesn’t matter what the Book of Mormon says - it’s a fairy tale - period.
• It doesn’t matter what the LDS church teaches - it’s a cult sham - period.
  In this matter, the Catholic apologist is on familiar ground. Mormons and protestants alike affirm that the Church of the Apostles was valid. And both claim that this Church somehow fell into apostasy. Protestants want to blame pagan influences after Constantine enacted religious tolerance with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Mormons get on this boat also, but they tend to place greater emphasis on bad behavior of Catholics (including Popes) throughout history.

Either attack is familiar to Catholic apologists, and either attack vector is easily overcome.

Mormon theologian James E. Talmadge exposed the Mormon defense of the doctrine of Apostasy in his book entirely devoted to the theme, “The Great Apostasy.” It has been in continuous publication since 1909, and you may buy it at Amazon for $14.95:
amazon.com/Great-Apostasy-James-E-Talmage/dp/0875798438/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230450658&sr=8-1
However, you may read the 1909 edition (which is out of copyright) for free at Google Books:
books.google.com/books?id=yJn69K_Q0y0C
It will not take long to see that the arguments are familiar and weak and easily defeated.

For this reason, skilled Mormon apologists will attempt to steer the argument away from the Apostasy, and distract you with other matters. DO NOT LET THEM. Hold their feet to the fire on this ONE DOCTRINE. The fallacy of this doctrine destroys the entire Mormon church.

 

[thistle]

my dear friends. i have been strugling with a problem for it seems 4ever. fortunately, my father is a catholic, but unfortunately my mother is a mormon. i have never really had a problem with this. but as i have grown up. i have realized mormonism is invalid. but when the missionaries come to my door. they always beat me

not like i was trying to. but more importantly. i can’t summarize to my self why mormonism is wrong? i know catholicism is valid and the only church. but how do i know mormonism is wrong?

thank you. and god bless

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/index.html

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Focus ONLY on the Mormon doctrine of the Great (or Total) Apostasy. If the Mormons are correct about this then their religion is also correct. If they are wrong, their religion is also wrong. Every single aspect of the Mormon faith clings to this doctrine.

There is NO other Mormon doctrine that means a fig if they are wrong about the Great Apostasy.

If they are wrong about the Apsotasy then…

• It doesn’t matter what Joseph Smith said - he’s a fraud - period.
• It doesn’t matter what the Book of Mormon says - it’s a fairy tale - period.
• It doesn’t matter what the LDS church teaches - it’s a cult sham - period.
  In this matter, the Catholic apologist is on familiar ground. Mormons and protestants alike affirm that the Church of the Apostles was valid. And both claim that this Church somehow fell into apostasy. Protestants want to blame pagan influences after Constantine enacted religious tolerance with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Mormons get on this boat also, but they tend to place greater emphasis on bad behavior of Catholics (including Popes) throughout history.

Either attack is familiar to Catholic apologists, and either attack vector is easily overcome.

Mormon theologian James E. Talmadge exposed the Mormon defense of the doctrine of Apostasy in his book entirely devoted to the theme, “The Great Apostasy.” It has been in continuous publication since 1909, and you may buy it at Amazon for $14.95:
amazon.com/Great-Apostasy-James-E-Talmage/dp/0875798438/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230450658&sr=8-1
However, you may read the 1909 edition (which is out of copyright) for free at Google Books:
books.google.com/books?id=yJn69K_Q0y0C
It will not take long to see that the arguments are familiar and weak and easily defeated.

For this reason, skilled Mormon apologists will attempt to steer the argument away from the Apostasy, and distract you with other matters. DO NOT LET THEM. Hold their feet to the fire on this ONE DOCTRINE. The fallacy of this doctrine destroys the entire Mormon church.

This is very well put. Thank you for pointing this book out to me.
I actually just stumbled upon a superb short Catholic Apologetics article on The Great Apostasy by apologist Patrick Madrid:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MORMON2.htm
I STRONGLY suggest Mr Isla read this.
Check out this quote from that article:
IF THE ALLEGED APOSTASY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH WAS NOT A REALITY, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS IS NOT THE DIVINE INSTITUTION ITS NAME PROCLAIMS"[James E. Talmadge, *The Great Apostasy] (emphasis added).

Talmadge is correct in evaluating the consequences, of course: if no apostasy, no restoration, and if no restoration, no Mormonism.
And one really cool verse that Pat referenced denying a great apostasy was Mat 13:24-30, 36-43.

 

[MrIsla]

this has been all of great help. ill see what i can do. i think i scared them off anyways because i mentioned that to them previously. thankyou all for your help.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

this has been all of great help. ill see what i can do. i think i scared them off anyways because i mentioned that to them previously. thankyou all for your help.

Don’t be confrontational (‘in your face’) about it, instead phrase it in the sense it is PERSONALLY disturbing to YOU that the Church He established fell away.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Talmadge is correct in evaluating the consequences, of course: if no apostasy, no restoration, and if no restoration, no Mormonism.

And one of the very nice things about debating apostasy is that it is not dependent on religious opinion or interpretation. If it happened, it was a historic event. There should be a name and a date associated with it.

Talmadge works much too hard, trying to show apostasy by a preponderance of evidence of an event that gradually built up. But apostasy is not a gradual thing - it is a sudden thing. The Church cannot be “slightly” or “mostly” apostate - She either IS apostate or she is NOT. It takes only ONE event for the entire Catholic Church to be apostate. It is SO EASY (in theory) for the Church to fall into apostasy. Yet, She never has.

If the Church really DID fall into apostasy, it would not require an entire book to describe it. You could describe it on a post-it note. If you just had the words to write. But there are no words to describe it, because it never happened.

Ask them for a name and a date.

 

[VinnyDee78]

If the Church really DID fall into apostasy, it would not require an entire book to describe it. You could describe it on a post-it note.

Here’s your sign… uh, I mean post-it-note.

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that cman of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who aopposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” 2 Thes. 2:3 (KJV)

The D-R version is significantly different and refers to the falling away as a “revolt.” Don’t know what to make of that…

This is one of the scriptures Latter-day Saints believe indicated that there would be a falling away. Again - a strict appeal to the Bible sometimes leaves it up for interpretation; hence 3,000 Protestant religions and 8 versions of the Catholic Bible.

Remember, the 14 year old Joseph Smith asked which church to join and God answered - none of them. If the true church was on the earth at that time, God would have told him so.

Wouldn’t it have been much easier for Joseph if God had said - join the Catholic church. I think Joseph preferred being tar and feathered (40+ times) for saying he actually conversed with God face to face. He simply was God’s chosen vessel to restore the gospel.

Hence the need for a Prophet, additional scripture for clarification (another witness of Jesus Christ), and the restored gospel with authority, priesthood, doctrine, etc.

You asked. Vinny

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here’s your sign… uh, I mean post-it-note.

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that cman of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who aopposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thes. 2:3 (KJV)

The D-R version is significantly different and refers to the falling away as a “revolt.” Don’t know what to make of that…

This is one of the scriptures Latter-day Saints believe indicated that there would be a falling away. Again - a strict appeal to the Bible sometimes leaves it up for interpretation; hence 3,000 Protestant religions and 8 versions of the Catholic Bible.

Remember, the 14 year old Joseph Smith asked which church to join and God answered - none of them. If the true church was on the earth at that time, God would have told him so.

Wouldn’t it have been much easier for Joseph if God had said - join the Catholic church.

Your assumption is that young Joey was actually talking to God.

What if the young and impressionable Joey was actually talking to Satan who was “masquerading as an angel of light”? (2 Corinthians 11:14)

In that case, Moro…er…Satan would NOT direct Joey to the local Catholic Church but would instead lead him into founding one of the great cults of all time.

A brilliant strategy, eh?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[DavidFilmer]

Here’s your sign… uh, I mean post-it-note.
*…*for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first…

Even if that quote could be interpreted as indicating a total (general) apostasy of the Church (instead of a large apostasy of individual members), it is still just a prediction of an apostasy. It is not proof that an apostasy has already occurred (as the Mormons claim).

If apostasy has happened, it is a historical, not a religious event. It would (by necessity) have happened on a single day at the hands of a single Pope or Council. So someone ought to be able to name the Pope or Council.

There is one obvious problem with using this passage as “proof” of an apostasy that has *already *happened: the passage describes events related to the destruction of the Anti-Christ at the end-times.

It’s also evident that the verse does not refer to a total (complete, general) apostasy of the entire Church. It refers to “those destined to ruin”

No Catholic will deny that there have been times of great personal apostasy (the Arian and protestant heresies leap to mind). But that’s not the same as total apostasy.

At best, a Mormon apologist might try to demonstrate that the passage does not clearly preclude an interpretation of total apostasy. But the Mormon has a much more difficult time offering evidence that the prophesy has already been fulfilled.

Again - a strict appeal to the Bible sometimes leaves it up for interpretation; hence 3,000 Protestant religions

I believe you’re missing some zeros. Last I heard, there were more than 300,000 protestant denominations.

and 8 versions of the Catholic Bible

If by “versions” you mean “different translations” then there are a LOT more than eight (translations exist for most spoken languages). But there is only one “version” of Catholic *doctrine *(and always has been, and always will be).

FWIW, the Church only regards one Bible translation as “official” and thus serves as the reference point to all other translations. It is called the Nova Vulgate; you may read it (in Latin) on the Vatican’s website:vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html
“Official” translations in other languages are “official” only to the extent that they are approved for liturgical use.

 

[dcana]

Focus ONLY on the Mormon doctrine of the Great (or Total) Apostasy. If the Mormons are correct about this then their religion is also correct. If they are wrong, their religion is also wrong. Every single aspect of the Mormon faith clings to this doctrine.

There is NO other Mormon doctrine that means a fig if they are wrong about the Great Apostasy.

If they are wrong about the Apsotasy then…

• It doesn’t matter what Joseph Smith said - he’s a fraud - period.
• It doesn’t matter what the Book of Mormon says - it’s a fairy tale - period.

It is not correct to say, “If the Mormons are correct about this then their religion is also correct.” The so-called apostasy could have taken place and the Mormon religion could still be absolutely false (as it is), that is, it is in no way a “restoration” of the earliest church so that there is currently no completely “true” church on earth that teaches without error. Mr. Smith could still have been deceived at best or a complete fraud and liar at worst in claiming he talked to an angel or God who told him to found a new church.

 

[DavidFilmer]

It is not correct to say, “If the Mormons are correct about this then their religion is also correct.” The so-called apostasy could have taken place and the Mormon religion could still be absolutely false

True. But the Mormons are the *only *people making a claim of total apostasy. So I will modify my statement to include two possible outcomes:

• If “Total Apostasy” actually did happen, God would somehow “restore” the Church.
• If “Total Apostasy” actually did happen, God would absolutely abandon humanity
  Mormons pick Door #1. Catholics deny that Total Apostasy is even possible, so they pick neither door. But, if pressed into accepting a purely hypothetical possibility of total apostasy, I believe most Catholics (including myself) would take option #1.

So, if (as the Mormons claim), total apostasy really DID happen, then one of two things has occurred:

• God has (or will) restore the Church
• God has abandoned humanity
  But, if total apostasy HAS happened, the Mormon church is the only significant organization to say so. This would give them great credibility in defining how God has accomplished Option #1. The only credible opposition (given the presumption of apostasy) would be that God has not YET restored the Church. This is not un-credible - after all, according to young Smith, the Church was apostate for CENTURIES before Smith came along. So maybe he got some of it right, but missed the important bits (such as whether restoration has actually occurred).

Otherwise, God has abandoned humanity.

So I tend to accept the Mormon doctrine, provided it can be demonstrated that total apostasy has actually occurred.

Of course, it has not, so all of Mormonism is false.

 

[VinnyDee78]

Even if that quote could be interpreted as indicating a total (general) apostasy of the Church (instead of a large apostasy of individual members), it is still just a prediction of an apostasy. It is not proof that an apostasy has already occurred (as the Mormons claim).

If apostasy has happened, it is a historical, not a religious event. It would (by necessity) have happened on a single day at the hands of a single Pope or Council. So someone ought to be able to name the Pope or Council.

There is a principle, albeit a restored Latter-day principle, that may shed some light on this topic in my view. I don’t know if apologetics have stated this before, but I think it applies to the notion of apostasy.

*"…the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man." *D&C 121:36-37

Now this is a principle Latter-day Saints apply to themselves and holders of the priesthood of God. If it is a true principle, the apostasy becomes a certain reality by virtue of the history of corrupt men who held that authority at one time. The heavens withdrew - not something you would see on the front page of some Serf’s parchment.

I believe this did occur (Amen to the Priesthood and that man’s authority), and while the genealogy of the authority may have been recorded (and you base your salvation and association to the church for it), it was those same corrupt men who were in charge of that duty as well.

I know when men act in any measure of unrighteousness, then Amen to the priesthood and its authority.

So from an LDS perspective and real life experience handling this sacred call, the Apostasy occurred and the principles that govern that authority have likewise been restored.

Respectfully - Vinny

 

[utunumsint]

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first,

So by the very fact that Paul is still alive and writing these words, we can assume that the Total apostacy had not happened yet.

and that cman of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who aopposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thes. 2:3 (KJV)

The man of sin has also not been revealed, unless there is some mormon doctrine on this point that I don’t know about.

It is also a well known fact that Paul continued to live for several years after writing the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians. John’s Gospel and Revelations was writen almost 50 years later, and Revelations contains many favourable judgements on the seven churchs, so we can conclude that total apostacy had not occured at the time Revelations was writen.

So that leaves the time when the New Testament was being writen as not a time when total apostacy was happening.

My question then is, what indication do we have that total apostacy occured at any time after the New Testament writings? If we apply the doctrines penned by Joseph Smith as a criterion for determining apostacy, then all of the church fathers are apostate. However, this procedure would invovle a ridiculous amount of historical revisionism, that would have to be rejected by any serioius historian.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Remember, the 14 year old Joseph Smith asked which church to join and God answered - none of them. If the true church was on the earth at that time, God would have told him so.

Wouldn’t it have been much easier for Joseph if God had said - join the Catholic church.

:newidea:

 

[DavidFilmer]

*…*in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves;

Really? *Any *degree? Mormons believe that God withdraws the priesthood from anyone who exhibits *any *degree of unrighteousness? I hadn’t heard that.

the apostasy becomes a certain reality by virtue of the history of corrupt men who held that authority at one time.

Well, yeah. Even the Apostle Paul could not have retained his ministry under such standards (Romans 7:14-25).

But there’s no basis (outside of LDS teaching) to suppose that God would withdraw the authority of the Church based on any sort of personal unrighteousness (a form of apostasy) of its leaders.

In fact, Jesus insisted that the Jews of his day accept the authority of the Jewish church, even though its leaders were personally corrupt and hypocritical:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Matthew 23:2-3
​

The idea that someone can forfeit his priestly ministry by bad conduct is not known in the Bible or in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.