Mormonism....Why?

[LaMar]

I don’t mean the religions are identical I know a good deal about both, I mean peoples perceptions of them are so different because Mormonism is newer and proposes radically different things. But in reality they are no more whacky than what Catholicism believes in. If you took 2 people who never heard of either at all and explained both religions I bet they would both think both religions are equally impossible to believe. Think of it God Himself born as a man a baby with diapers who was killed for you and now you eat him every week. Just think how bizarre that would sound to someone who wasn’t raised in a culture where it is the norm?

Absolutely right.

Add to this the fable about god parting the ocean so his favorite children could cross on the dry sea bed, after the same god murders the enemies of his pals. Then the story about god holding the sun stationary in the sky, so that there’d be more daylight for his hero could kill more of his enemies. There’s a story about a fellow who rides a donkey to heaven, and another one about a goddess who appears to kids and tells them the future. How is this any more or less ridiculous than the con man who talks about seeing an angel in the woods and gives him some nonexistent plates?

This is all a lot of nonsense that no intelligent person could possibly take seriously. Nothing is funnier to me than to see a bunch of true believers arguing about which has the cooler imaginary friend. Fortunately, we don’t have to take any of this seriously. If we see it as metaphor, then it all begins to make perfect sense.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello David,
I really have a small bit prepared on “post baptismal regeneration,” but it is so much harder to respond to the ideas you present on your blog than to offer little bits here. I decided to try to respond to something on the Qur’an instead, but that is similarly hard.

The premise of this thread IMO quite clearly is that Mormonism is so evidently false that the OP author doesn’t understand how anyone can upon “rational evaluation of the evidence” conclude that Mormonism has “any bearing in truth.”
I believe that Catholic Answers does not present anywhere near the full picture of Mormonism and for this reason such questions like the one in the OP are asked.

Me: IMHO, one must BEGIN with the view that a restoration has occurred for the evidence at hand (Biblical and historical) to support the sort of apostasy (i.e. total) that would require a restoration. Jesus’ kingdom parables, and certain NT passages (e.g. Matt. 16:18; 28:19, 29; 1 John 2:8, et al.) speak to a continuity between the 1st and 2nd coming of our Lord.

I would not be a “restorationist in waiting” were there no restoration, I would be a Catholic. I do not believe the case from the Bible for an inevitable apostasy or the case from the Bible for no chance of apostasy is so strong as to preclude either. I cannot remember the last time I tried to show an apostasy from the Bible, but such things are popular LDS apologetics. Are you leaning towards the view that the Biblical record precludes the existence of an apostasy?

I believe the BOM is far better explained within a CoJCoLDS ancient/divine record than within a Catholic ??? framework.>>

My perception is that the BOM is unique in that without an ancient pedigree it came forth in 1830 claiming to be an ancient record. I see the Old World journey on the Frankincense trail to be difficult to explain via a fraud paradigm. Increasingly, I see the New World picture as a positive for the authentic BOM.
At this point where I to be Catholic I would believe that the “devil did it,” and not that the evidence is lacking for LDS to be impressed.

Having read the three books by Motlagh, I can see some aspects within the Bahai faith that warrant far less dismissal than that which is generally afforded to it. The evidentiary strength of the Bahai faith is not well understood by non-Bahai’s (though I have always wondered if there are far better discussions of some of these things in the Moslem east than in the Christian west).
Other than the supposed beauty of the Qur’an in Arabic, I do not know of similar things for Islam. I of course cannot read Arabic.

Me: It would be interesting to compare the extant evidence/s between the CoJCoLDS and the RCC when using the 4 notes: one, holy, catholic and apostolic…

I am not sure how we would gauge “one,” “holy,” and “catholic.”
I think the development theories moving from apostles to co-workers to bishops/presbyters to mono-episcopate bishops certainly link the Catholic authority to the apostles. I think outside of the claims by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery there is no link to the apostles in the CoJCoLDS.
I have in the past and I still believe today that beliefs of LDS with respect to ancient and modern apostles map well and the Catholic has an apostolic minister (the Bishop) who is not the same as an apostle. Of course, LDS supernatural apostolic powers appear less present (and probably not solely due to the specific intention to not share/publicize such things) than we would both agree was the case for the ancient apostles or the claimed case for the early LDS apostles.

At least on the “apostolic” front, I agree this is critical to the discussion of apostasy. I think the case made by Nibley that the apostles and bishops co-existed with different spheres of authority and influence is well made. I think beside this must be put development ideas like Father Sullivan’s. This is another thing that I think is missing on Catholic Answers even if you include Karl Keating, Father Pacwa, and others.

I think that is enough for now.
Charity, TOm

 

[lukewarm]

Absolutely right.

Add to this the fable about god parting the ocean so his favorite children could cross on the dry sea bed, after the same god murders the enemies of his pals. Then the story about god holding the sun stationary in the sky, so that there’d be more daylight for his hero could kill more of his enemies. There’s a story about a fellow who rides a donkey to heaven, and another one about a goddess who appears to kids and tells them the future. How is this any more or less ridiculous than the con man who talks about seeing an angel in the woods and gives him some nonexistent plates?

This is all a lot of nonsense that no intelligent person could possibly take seriously. Nothing is funnier to me than to see a bunch of true believers arguing about which has the cooler imaginary friend. Fortunately, we don’t have to take any of this seriously. If we see it as metaphor, then it all begins to make perfect sense.

The one where I literally laughed out loud when I read it because it was so absurd was when the “Prophet” Elisha struck dead a bunch of little kids because they called him bald donkey or something, yeah that’s rational…

Here’s the passage I looked it up on google… Go away you baldhead LOL, having the boys eaten by bears seems a reasonable way to retaliate to being called a “baldhead”…

*23He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24And he turned around, and when he saw them,(A) he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. *

I literally laughed out loud and went “what”??? A bit of an overeaction no? The Old Testament is a real faith killer, most Christians have never read it, those that do have a very difficult time reconciling it with a real God.

 

[LaMar]

The one where I literally laughed out loud when I read it because it was so absurd was when the “Prophet” Elisha struck dead a bunch of little kids because they called him bald donkey or something, yeah that’s rational…

Here’s the passage I looked it up on google… Go away you baldhead LOL, having the boys eaten by bears seems a reasonable way to retaliate to being called a “baldhead”…

*23He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24And he turned around, and when he saw them,(A) he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. *

I literally laughed out loud and went “what”??? A bit of an overeaction no? The Old Testament is a real faith killer, most Christians have never read it, those that do have a very difficult time reconciling it with a real God.

That’s a good one all right.

I had a similar epiphany as a little kid. There’s a part of the Book of Mormon which has the protagonist dressing up in the clothes of a servant, murdering his enemy, and stealing some brass plates. What on earth was I supposed to learn from this, I wondered…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laban_(Book_of_Mormon

Shortly after that, I got into the Old Testament. I read about Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law, and then turning around and condemning her for it. Noah had sex with his two daughters, and possibly one of his sons too. Samson consorted with prostitutes. These are supposed to be our heroes…I thought at the time that they sounded like a bunch of freakin’ perverts to me.

 

[J_C]

wow. Now i’m starting to see what people have meant when they say that the end of mormon religion is a loss of faith altogether. what a shame.

there is no faith killing resulting from a proper cultural context reading of the old testament. and by the way if a person is offended by such stories then he will also be offended by the very idea of God, who has a mind of His own and doesn’t necessarily go along with the various inane/insane plans of men.

 

[lukewarm]

wow. Now i’m starting to see what people have meant when they say that the end of mormon religion is a loss of faith altogether. what a shame.

there is no faith killing resulting from a proper cultural context reading of the old testament. and by the way if a person is offended by such stories then he will also be offended by the very idea of God, who has a mind of His own and doesn’t necessarily go along with the various inane/insane plans of men.

So now without the huge guilt trip do you think having two she bears eat 42 children is proper recourse for being called a “baldhead”? Seriously…

 

[LaMar]

I wouldn’t know first-hand anymore, since I converted to the Catholic faith in 1993 (kinda makes me a super-duper apostate in
the eyes of my former coreligionists, doesn’t it? )

You betcha! You went from the frying pan into the fire.

I haven’t been to the CoC here where I live in over a year. I used to pop in a couple of times a year. On one occasion, I mentioned in passing that Joe Smith had multiple spouses. Immediately I was surrounded by a bunch of older ladies who went half crazy at that suggestion. Apparently, in my local ward (or whatever you call it) they believe that Joseph Smith fought against polygamy, and the very idea is a Satanic conspiracy started by us Brighamites.

Oh well. We all have our own opinions. On the whole, it seems like it’s becoming more reasonable over there.

 

[Jerusha]

Perhaps you might reframe the Bible in terms of being the stories of sinful human beings, as we all are. I can name several who were better, and two who did not sin.

 

[LaMar]

wow. Now i’m starting to see what people have meant when they say that the end of mormon religion is a loss of faith altogether. what a shame.

there is no faith killing resulting from a proper cultural context reading of the old testament. and by the way if a person is offended by such stories then he will also be offended by the very idea of God, who has a mind of His own and doesn’t necessarily go along with the various inane/insane plans of men.

The Mormon theology is very new, and in that regard it’s a lot easier to do a comparative analysis against earlier religious ideas.

Smith got his ideas from the Bible, and books like Manuscript Found, and View of the Hebrews, and like that.

The folks who wrote the bible also got their ideas from earlier religious texts. Saul of Tarsus plagiarized Plato for the idea of an eternal soul (an idea which appears nowhere in Jewish mythology) and a judgment day. The Old Testament story of Noah is a retelling of Gilgamesh. Samson is Achilles. Moses being hidden in a little boat and set afloat on a river is a word-for-word copy of a Sumerian story.

None of this stuff is original. We should accept that and embrace it, and see the stories for what they are, rather than using them to excuse what we want to do.

If there is a God, I’m convinced he wants us to treat one another decently, and build a better world. The Jesus character is a good example of that. If there isn’t a God, then treating one another decently is still a good idea. Doesn’t really matter in the end, and no faith (other than a faith in humanity and civilization) is required.

 

[mschrank]

Doesn’t really matter in the end, and no faith (other than a faith in humanity and civilization) is required.

Stay away from The Twilight of the Gods if you want to keep your flat head!

 

[Jerusha]

Now i’m starting to see what people have meant when they say that the end of mormon religion is a loss of faith altogether.

That is my concern, too. Perhaps a latency time professing agnosticism (or atheism) as they recover is the best we can expect from most.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

You betcha! You went from the frying pan into the fire.

I haven’t been to the CoC here where I live in over a year. I used to pop in a couple of times a year. On one occasion, I mentioned in passing that Joe Smith had multiple spouses. Immediately I was surrounded by a bunch of older ladies who went half crazy at that suggestion. Apparently, in my local ward (or whatever you call it) they believe that Joseph Smith fought against polygamy, and the very idea is a Satanic conspiracy started by us Brighamites.

Oh well. We all have our own opinions. On the whole, it seems like it’s becoming more reasonable over there.

Well, in defense of the older ladies, that was what the Church taught until recently. Change is hard(at least that’s what they used to call it) hasn’t accepted the changes of the World Church headquartered here in the holy city of Independence.

 

[LaMar]

Well, in defense of the older ladies, that was what the Church taught until recently. Change is hard(at least that’s what they used to call it) hasn’t accepted the changes of the World Church headquartered here in the holy city of Independence.

Yeah, I know. And hey, it’s no more bizarre than what the ladies would have heard if they sat in on relief society in St. George, Utah; where they’d surely be shunned as apostates and otherwise be treated abominably.

I dig the fact that you guys have done away with a lot of the residual racist and sexist lunacy that used to plague Mormonism (and to some extent still does).

 

[AugustineH354]

Hello again Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post; you wrote:

The premise of this thread IMO quite clearly is that Mormonism is so evidently false that the OP author doesn’t understand how anyone can upon “rational evaluation of the evidence” conclude that Mormonism has “any bearing in truth.”
I believe that Catholic Answers does not present anywhere near the full picture of Mormonism and for this reason such questions like the one in the OP are asked.>>

Me: With much regret, I must agree with your assessment. For what ever reason/s, it seems to be next to impossible for those of another faith to objectively, and accurately portray the beliefs and practices of those with whom differ—members of the CoJCoLDS are certainly not immune…

I would not be a “restorationist in waiting” were there no restoration, I would be a Catholic. I do not believe the case from the Bible for an inevitable apostasy or the case from the Bible for no chance of apostasy is so strong as to preclude either. I cannot remember the last time I tried to show an apostasy from the Bible, but such things are popular LDS apologetics. Are you leaning towards the view that the Biblical record precludes the existence of an apostasy?>>

Me: Absolutely precludes? No. However, with that said, the language of perpetuity and continuity is such that the ‘burden of proof’ lies with away group/person that would reject such language.

I am not sure how we would gauge “one,” “holy,” and “catholic.”
I think the development theories moving from apostles to co-workers to bishops/presbyters to mono-episcopate bishops certainly link the Catholic authority to the apostles. I think outside of the claims by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery there is no link to the apostles in the CoJCoLDS.
I have in the past and I still believe today that beliefs of LDS with respect to ancient and modern apostles map well and the Catholic has an apostolic minister (the Bishop) who is not the same as an apostle. Of course, LDS supernatural apostolic powers appear less present (and probably not solely due to the specific intention to not share/publicize such things) than we would both agree was the case for the ancient apostles or the claimed case for the early LDS apostles.>>

Me: As you well know, it is one thing to claim to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, quite another to clearly demonstrate it. The “signs and wonders” of Christ’s apostles sure seemed to be a ‘witness’ of sorts, as was their moving and marvelous testimonies of having seen the rising Lord.

At least on the “apostolic” front, I agree this is critical to the discussion of apostasy. I think the case made by Nibley that the apostles and bishops co-existed with different spheres of authority and influence is well made. I think beside this must be put development ideas like Father Sullivan’s. This is another thing that I think is missing on Catholic Answers even if you include Karl Keating, Father Pacwa, and others.>>

Me: For sure, while the apostles were still present, one would expect “different spheres”; but with the passing of the apostolic witnesses would not one also expect a passing of their authority?

Grace and peace,

David

 

[zerinus]

i said “any” religion knowing full well that it includes “all” relgision. I didnot intend to omit any. but this does not undermine the catholic religion at all because as a general rule catholics are not canvassing door to door trying to out debate people. so the onus here is on those who are canvassing and looking for itchy ears.

Sounds pretty absurd to me. So that only applies to religions which actively proselytize, and not to those ones that don’t? And you are further telling me that the Catholic Church does not proselytize?? So what happened to the great commandment to actively preach the gospel to “every creature”? The Catholic Church does not keep that commandment?

yet the question remains, why would the Holy Ghost witness one thing to one person and then something different, entirely oppositely different, to someone else on the same day respecting the truth of religion? I am not such a bible expert as you appear to be, so I ask you as I asked whyme last night, are you aware of any instances recorded either in the Bible or the Book of mormon in which this was the case? if so please cite them for me, because I would really like to understand this phenomenon that appears to make all relgions of equal merit in the view of God, if not man.

No, there is no such instance recorded in either book; and that proves exactly what? What conclusion do you intend to draw from that?

Im’ sorry but Ihave to disagree with you based on what i have already read here and elsewhere, and experienced with my own eyes and ears. About two weeks ago i read an account of a young missionary who described his efforts over many weeks to convert a lady in south America to mormon religion, but, he wrote, “she is really a strong Catholic and refuses to be baptised.”

And that proves what exactly?

And going bcak to the first vision Joseph was told that all there creeds are an abomination. Many other mormons have written of this, . . .

Which Mormons “have written of this”? Anti-Mormons maybe, but not Mormons that I know of. Haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

. . . to be fair so have many protestants, but we are talking mormons here and now, so while i undersatand that your version of mormon religion is unique compared to some others, i don’t see you how you can now deny having stated firmly that Cathloism is apostate, has been apostate since 100ad. And if an apostate religion isn’t an abomination, then what is?

Like I said, you don’t want to know what we believe. You want to tell us what we believe. It is hard to argue with that. But let me tell you something. You know very little about Mormonism (in fact almost nothing), and you are boxing yourself into a corner because you want to learn about us on the one hand, and on the other hand you want to believe about us whatever you want to believe, rather than obtaining the true information about us that only we can provide. That will get you nowhere; and those young people (whoever they are) whom you are trying to influence will see through your folly, and will not be impressed.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

As to why people become mormon or choose to stay mormon, I would say it is because for many the holy ghost has testified to them of its truthfulness.

If you can say that then you should never insult us by calling yourself a Catholic.

Very few can stay mormon for very long without such a testimony. The mormon faith is not a faith for just sunday worship. It is a way of life. No alcohol, no coffee, no sex (outside of marriage), no porn, good living, moral living, and a lifestyle that tends to be just the opposite of the lifestyle of the world, if one lives in the mormon faith and yet, lives in the world.

The same could be said for Catholicism, except for the “no alcohol, no coffee” part. The Catechism cousels us not to abuse alcohol, tobacco or any other substance, but does not command complete abstinence.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

I haven’t seen PaulDupre mock anything that any Mormon considers sacred. He’s been very circumspect in all the articles I read.

Actually, I am sorry to say I have had my mocking moments.

But mostly I just post quotes from Mormon sources to reveal what Mormonism really teaches. I have to do that in response to the Mormons who come here and claim that the LDS church does not teach (________ fill in the blank) when all of their prophets, apostles and church publications say otherwise.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

Sorry, but this is one aspect of your argument which simply isn’t true. Nobody gave Joseph Smith any plates, and there’s no credible historical evidence that any plates ever existed at all.

Grant Palmer wrote a great book called An Insider’s View Of Mormon Origins. Palmer is a devout and believing Mormon who goes into great detail about the origins of Smith’s opus. The only prop that he actually used in authoring the Book of Mormon was a seer stone (roughly analogous to a crystal ball, for you guys who don’t know what that is) and a hat. He put the seer stone into the hat, then put his face into the hat, and had visions through the stone. He spoke to a scribe who wrote it all down.

The witnesses of the supposed plates all either recanted later or admitted that they had only seen the plates “in a spiritual fashion”.

Don’t mean to quibble, but thought I’d throw that out. The rest of your critique is a bit harsh but basically accurate.

cyberjacques is refering to the Kinderhook Plates (google it).

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

Not surprising that this is new to me. I thought I had a pretty good handle on all Smith’s idiotic behavior.

Thanks for the info. I wonder if I can incorporate it into a lesson someplace. LOL!

Here is the Wiki article on the Kinderhook plates.

 

[LaMar]

Actually, I am sorry to say I have had my mocking moments.

But mostly I just post quotes from Mormon sources to reveal what Mormonism really teaches. I have to do that in response to the Mormons who come here and claim that the LDS church does not teach (________ fill in the blank) when all of their prophets, apostles and church publications say otherwise.

Paul

Hey Paul,

Funny how we’re all so ashamed about the things we grow up boasting about. Quite psychotic, but funny. [cue up a dead prez saying “I don’t know that we teach that…”]

I’ve been meaning to ask you: What is the MADB forum? Do you have an address?

Until last week I’ve done a good job staying away from religious discussions, but I’m learning that this can be fun.