Mormons converted from Catholicism

[Anziano]

It is easy to claim that early Christianity was corrupted by Hellenistic philosophy; what is difficult is actually backing up such a claim. Some points to consider:

1. What if God intended for Christianity to meet Hellenism? Surely he knew that by sending Christ into the world at the height of the Roman Empire the Church would be exposed to such ideas.

That is certainly a possibility, I suppose, but we have to ask, to what end? After all, Judaism was a faith of thousands of years, did they lack the understanding of God and need pagan philosophy to help understand God, when thousands of years of interaction with God could not help? This is not really logical in my opinion

. “Hellenism” is not one, unified ideology. Hellenic culture contained many different beliefs and ideologies. I could just as easily argue that Mormonism was shaped by Greek Hellenism by pointing to the belief among some Greeks that gods had bodies and that the universe was eternal. Further, all religions are in some manner a product of their times. I could argue that Mormonism was corrupted by American enlightenment ideas. As you know, many of Smith’s ideas were inspired by popular thought of the time.

Actually, according to Harold Bloom, who did not believe in Smith BTW, Mormonism is a uniquely archaic faith, hearkening back to the roots of Jewish esoterica. We are far more similar to Jews than we could be to Protestant Americans of the time period.

1. Why must we think that what is correct must coincide with what Jews believed? If one studies the Old Testament one will find that Abraham understood God differently than Daniel. There was a development of Israel’s understanding of the Divine. Why couldn’t this understanding have continued?

It could be a possibility, but in Abraham and Daniel belonged to the same general idea pool. In fact, the whole of Christianity, as an outgrowth of Judaism, belonged to the same thought pool, and then all thought jumped across the Med to Greece.

Imagine that God was a God of Abraham, Isaac, David, and Jesus, but in order to understand God, Plato was the conduit for understanding? Why would thousands of years of thought, tradition, and philosophy be jettisoned suddenly?

There is more to this, early Christians were far closer to Jews than Catholics, but this is another topic altogether.

1. Finally, you cannot lump all Trinitarians into the same corrupted group since many saints of the church had their own criticisms to make of Greek philosophies. Even to this day there are Trinitarian Christians like the late Fr. John Romanides who was very critical of Greek philosophy.
   It is therefore necessary to demonstrate that the elements of Christianity that parallel Greek Hellenism are faulty by criticizing the ideas themselves.

 

[biggybig]

Jews are monotheistic. Mormonism is polytheistic. So, what is your point, exactly?

Christianity is monotheistic. Our center is Jesus Christ, who said, “I AM”, claiming to be God for which the Pharisees wanted to stone him. I don’t know why you have this insistence that Christians are aspiring Jews. We are not. Neither are we aspiring ancient Greek pagans. We aspire to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic churches Christianize, which can be described as “turning to Christ”. Whereas LDS have a Puritan streak that says non-Christian cultures and methods of knowledge can and will contaminated “pure religion” (thus, Puritans), Catholics are not Puritans. The Church when she evangelizes does not seek to destroy the person, their culture, their methods of understanding, but rather seeks to turn all things to Christ.

This!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why do you assume your Christianity is monotheistic? Neither Muslims nor Jews consider your beliefs monotheistic.

Logical fallacies expose errors in reasoning.

 

[LivingWaters7]

That is certainly a possibility, I suppose, but we have to ask, to what end? After all, Judaism was a faith of thousands of years, did they lack the understanding of God and need pagan philosophy to help understand God, when thousands of years of interaction with God could not help? This is not really logical in my opinion

I agree, that isn’t logical, but I think you’re misconstruing the actual argument being made.

Posters are claiming that Christianity originated in a cultural context, which was not only Jewish, but also Greek/Hellenistic. Christianity isn’t Judaism with Jesus added on top, but its own entity. Philosophers of all types certainly could have been inspired by God to understand or “know” certain truths (an idea that I heard many times in Mormonism), and the ancient Christians would have recognized said truths as a way to approach explaining certain ideas surrounding God, in addition to revelatory knowledge.

Actually, according to Harold Bloom, who did not believe in Smith BTW, Mormonism is a uniquely archaic faith, hearkening back to the roots of Jewish esoterica. We are far more similar to Jews than we could be to Protestant Americans of the time period.

I’d be interested in reading more of his reasoning behind this statement, like what he was specifically talking about (perhaps you can provide a link to the text). I don’t think anyone would deny that certain aspects of Mormonism hearken back to certain Jewish ideas or concepts. The question would then be, are those ideas/concepts valid/necessary for Christianity? Are Messianic Jews more valid than other Christians because they may hearken back to Judaism more than other versions of Christianity?

As an aside, those interested in the Jewish roots of Catholicism have multiple resources available. Two of my favorites, for the non-academic, are:

The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity by Taylor Marshall (his other two books in the series are also great: The Catholic Perspective on Paul: Paul and the Origins of Catholic Christianity
, and The Eternal City: Rome & the Origins of Catholic Christianity
)

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre (his forthcoming Jesus the Bridegroom: The Greatest Love Story Ever Told looks pretty interesting, just found it).

The Jewish roots of Catholicism are quite clear, FWIW.

It could be a possibility, but in Abraham and Daniel belonged to the same general idea pool. In fact, the whole of Christianity, as an outgrowth of Judaism, belonged to the same thought pool, and then all thought jumped across the Med to Greece.

Imagine that God was a God of Abraham, Isaac, David, and Jesus, but in order to understand God, Plato was the conduit for understanding? Why would thousands of years of thought, tradition, and philosophy be jettisoned suddenly?

What? You seem to be making this an either/or proposition, which no one else is claiming. We do not reject the revelatory truths given to the prophets of the Old Testament in favor of Hellenistic philosophies. By adopting the idea of “homoousios”, the early Christians found that it was a valid way of explaining an already revealed concept: that God is “one”, and eternally exists as three distinct Persons. Inspiration is not limited to the Jews, which seems to be what you are implying by your line of thought.

Further, I do find this line of thinking very interesting, in light of the adaptation of Freemasonry in the LDS temple Endowment.

There is more to this, early Christians were far closer to Jews than Catholics, but this is another topic altogether.

I don’t agree at all (indeed, there are numerous resources available connecting Catholicism not only to the early Christians (since, in our view, they were the early Christians), but to Judaism as well). Perhaps you’d like to start a separate thread on the matter? I’m interested in reading your reasons for saying this.

 

[Stephen168]

I’ve already answered a few of your questions, could you answer a few of mine first?

Actually, you haven’t answered any of my questions. The only question I’ve asked you is the one you now will not answer. I was thinking that the Greek philosophers talk about the four causes which is not three. So when you talk about the “trinity” of the soul as your only example of Greeks thinking in threes; it doesn’t hold much weight.

 

[RebeccaJ]

1. Finally, you cannot lump all Trinitarians into the same corrupted group since many saints of the church had their own criticisms to make of Greek philosophies. Even to this day there are Trinitarian Christians like the late Fr. John Romanides who was very critical of Greek philosophy.

I think it is possible that you don’t understand the arguments completely.

It is therefore necessary to demonstrate that the elements of Christianity that parallel Greek Hellenism are faulty by criticizing the ideas themselves.

Why?

 

[Stephen168]

Why do you assume your Christianity is monotheistic? Neither Muslims nor Jews consider your beliefs monotheistic.

Christians are monotheistic. Your statement is nothing new from a Mormon.
-You are claiming that ALL Jews and Muslims believe Christians are not monotheistic.
-All I have to do is find one of each that think Christians are monotheistic to prove you wrong and I have found one.
-Jews and Muslims are not the final court on Christian faith and reason.

 

[Stephen168]

Actually, according to Harold Bloom, who did not believe in Smith BTW, Mormonism is a uniquely archaic faith, hearkening back to the roots of Jewish esoterica. We are far more similar to Jews than we could be to Protestant Americans of the time period.

Yes, 19th century America had a fascination with the lost tribes and things Jewish. Mormonism was invented in that milieu.

 

[Stephen168]

There is more to this, early Christians were far closer to Jews than Catholics, but this is another topic altogether.

Original sources please. And a note from their mother.

 

[Stephen168]

For example, in the Greek world, the gods regularly took on human form and wandered among men.

Like Mormons the “Greek world” believed:
-God took human form (flesh and bone)
-There are many Gods
-Godlike beings who used pre-existent matter to make the world.
-the soul pre-existed before it was born mortal.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Yes, 19th century America had a fascination with the lost tribes and things Jewish. Mormonism was invented in that milieu.

Indeed.

This website also cites Harold Bloom in his book “The American Religion” as saying:

"The God of Joseph Smith is a daring revival of the God of some of the Kabbalists and Gnostics, prophetic sages who, like Smith himself, asserted that they had returned to the true religion…Mormonism is a purely American Gnosis, for which Joseph Smith was and is a far more crucial figure than Jesus could be. Smith is not just ‘a’ prophet, another prophet, but he is the essential prophet of these latter days, leading into the end time, whenever it comes."

 

[zaffiroborant]

Why do you assume your Christianity is monotheistic? Neither Muslims nor Jews consider your beliefs monotheistic.

What an arrogant and idiotic question. To state that someone doesn’t have a clue as to what their beliefs are, that they just assume what they believe. Do I just assume that I find pornography offensive, do I assume I don’t like vanilla ice cream? In the case where I have [sarcasm] assumed my offense at pornography [/sarcasm] should I care that thousands of people think it’s just fine and base my opinion on theirs.

It is absolutely and completely stupid of you to say we assume our belief is monotheistic, we know what we believe and what Muslims and Jews think we believe is irrelevant.

 

[Stephen168]

With regards to the Trinity, I am curious how you would square Hebrew philosophy and theology with the currently embodied Trinity?
Platonic thought included triune concepts such as the trinity of the soul. There were plenty of triune concepts in Greek philosophy, but not in Hebrew theology.

Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. (Exodus 23:14)

Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. (Dan 6:10)
Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice. (Psalm 55:17)

And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon(Genesis 15:9)

Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.(Jonah 1:17)

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinth 15:4)

Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?(Luke 13:7)

 

[marywarfield]

That is certainly a possibility, I suppose, but we have to ask, to what end? After all, Judaism was a faith of thousands of years, did they lack the understanding of God and need pagan philosophy to help understand God, when thousands of years of interaction with God could not help? This is not really logical in my opinion

Actually, according to Harold Bloom, who did not believe in Smith BTW, Mormonism is a uniquely archaic faith, hearkening back to the roots of Jewish esoterica. We are far more similar to Jews than we could be to Protestant Americans of the time period.

It could be a possibility, but in Abraham and Daniel belonged to the same general idea pool. In fact, the whole of Christianity, as an outgrowth of Judaism, belonged to the same thought pool, and then all thought jumped across the Med to Greece.

Imagine that God was a God of Abraham, Isaac, David, and Jesus, but in order to understand God, Plato was the conduit for understanding? Why would thousands of years of thought, tradition, and philosophy be jettisoned suddenly?

There is more to this, early Christians were far closer to Jews than Catholics, but this is another topic altogether.

1. Finally, you cannot lump all Trinitarians into the same corrupted group since many saints of the church had their own criticisms to make of Greek philosophies. Even to this day there are Trinitarian Christians like the late Fr. John Romanides who was very critical of Greek philosophy.
   It is therefore necessary to demonstrate that the elements of Christianity that parallel Greek Hellenism are faulty by criticizing the ideas themselves.

The most famous depiction in the world is if
the Old Testament trinity actually. The meeting
of Abraham with the three angels near Mamre.
holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/lord_trinity_rublev.html

To deny the importance of symbology in the either the Torah or the NT
is to suggest God behaves without purpose or reason.

 

[rmcmullan]

I can offer a couple of answers of why there are a lot of Catholics that become Mormon.

The first is that Catholicism is a a faith that embraces many others. An example of that is how it accepts the baptisms of other churches (although not Mormon baptism). In general, its membership has not been indoctrinated against other religions but embraces them. Much to its credit.

The second is that the Mormon doctrine can seem like an improvement over the Catholic doctrine without departing from it very much. On the subject of the Trinity, I don’t think most people realize how close their two positions are. Mormons use the term “Godhead” instead of Trinity and believe everything the Catholics do expect that they are literally three persons. I think the doctrine of the trinity is difficult to understand and there are a lot of finer points that many Christians don’t understand and the LDS teaching is, in contract, are very easy to understand. As a missionary, I have met people who read the story of St. Stephan’s vision of The Father and Son standing side by side and interpreted that as disproof of the Trinity but it isn’t.

Another teaching uniquely LDS and not well understood is what happens to unbaptized. LDS teach infant baptism is not necessary and there is baptism by proxy on behalf of the dead. But all the other elements of the Catholic teaching are retained: baptism is necessary and it must be performed by a member of the priesthood.

Other teachings that are uniquely Mormon and don’t really contradict the Catholic teaching is 1.) The pre-existence of spirits and 2.) The three possible kingdoms assigned after death. The Mormons even call purgatory the spirit world and in the sense that’s where you go while you await the Second Coming, they are consistent with the Catholic teaching (as I understand it)

I know my comments will not be appreciated by people who like to make a big deal of the doctrinal differences between Catholic and LDS but put yourself in the position of someone who is earnest and open and raised in Catholic doctrine but not a scholar of it, these teachings are new, exciting and build on what you know and expands them.

 

[TexanKnight]

I can offer a couple of answers of why there are a lot of Catholics that become Mormon.

The first is that Catholicism is a a faith that embraces many others. An example of that is how it accepts the baptisms of other churches (although not Mormon baptism). In general, its membership has not been indoctrinated against other religions but embraces them. Much to its credit.

The second is that the Mormon doctrine can seem like an improvement over the Catholic doctrine without departing from it very much. On the subject of the Trinity, I don’t think most people realize how close their two positions are. Mormons use the term “Godhead” instead of Trinity and believe everything the Catholics do expect that they are literally three persons. I think the doctrine of the trinity is difficult to understand and there are a lot of finer points that many Christians don’t understand and the LDS teaching is, in contract, are very easy to understand. As a missionary, I have met people who read the story of St. Stephan’s vision of The Father and Son standing side by side and interpreted that as disproof of the Trinity but it isn’t.

Another teaching uniquely LDS and not well understood is what happens to unbaptized. LDS teach infant baptism is not necessary and there is baptism by proxy on behalf of the dead. But all the other elements of the Catholic teaching are retained: baptism is necessary and it must be performed by a member of the priesthood.

Other teachings that are uniquely Mormon and don’t really contradict the Catholic teaching is 1.) The pre-existence of spirits and 2.) The three possible kingdoms assigned after death. The Mormons even call purgatory the spirit world and in the sense that’s where you go while you await the Second Coming, they are consistent with the Catholic teaching (as I understand it)

I know my comments will not be appreciated by people who like to make a big deal of the doctrinal differences between Catholic and LDS but put yourself in the position of someone who is earnest and open and raised in Catholic doctrine but not a scholar of it, these teachings are new, exciting and build on what you know and expands them.

naaaa…the main reason is because they are not taught the true doctrines of the lds church. When people discover those, they either leave the lds church or go inactive

 

[Stephen168]

The first is that Catholicism is a a faith that embraces many others. An example of that is how it accepts the baptisms of other churches (although not Mormon baptism). In general, its membership has not been indoctrinated against other religions but embraces them. Much to its credit.

Another teaching uniquely LDS and not well understood is what happens to unbaptized. LDS teach infant baptism is not necessary and there is baptism by proxy on behalf of the dead. But all the other elements of the Catholic teaching are retained: baptism is necessary and it must be performed by a member of the priesthood.

Christians believe in baptism in the name of the triune God; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Catholics believe baptism removes original sin (believing you can be God.) Mormons embrace original sin as a cord belief, and baptize in the name of three different gods.

The second is that the Mormon doctrine can seem like an improvement over the Catholic doctrine without departing from it very much. On the subject of the Trinity, I don’t think most people realize how close their two positions are. Mormons use the term “Godhead” instead of Trinity and believe everything the Catholics do expect that they are literally three persons. I think the doctrine of the trinity is difficult to understand and there are a lot of finer points that many Christians don’t understand and the LDS teaching is, in contract, are very easy to understand. As a missionary, I have met people who read the story of St. Stephan’s vision of The Father and Son standing side by side and interpreted that as disproof of the Trinity but it isn’t.

Christians believe in the one triune God. Mormon’s believe in many Gods. So the Mormon godhead is nothing like the trinity.

Other teachings that are uniquely Mormon and don’t really contradict the Catholic teaching is 1.) The pre-existence of spirits and 2.) The three possible kingdoms assigned after death. The Mormons even call purgatory the spirit world and in the sense that’s where you go while you await the Second Coming, they are consistent with the Catholic teaching (as I understand it)

Catholics do not believe that our soul pre-existed. Catholics believe in hell, purgatory, and the beatific vision it is my understanding that except for the number three, they have nothing in common.

I know my comments will not be appreciated by people who like to make a big deal of the doctrinal differences between Catholic and LDS but put yourself in the position of someone who is earnest and open and raised in Catholic doctrine but not a scholar of it, these teachings are new, exciting and build on what you know and expands them.

I think there is a proselytizing effort within Mormonism to make Catholics believe there isn’t much difference between Mormonism and Catholicism. I think it might enough work on young Catholics who don’t know their faith. But even as a young Catholic I knew that Christianity has never has a ‘prophet’ as its leader; and I knew the Book of Mormon was not true as Joseph Smith and my Mormon friends defined it at the time (1970’s).

 

[LivingWaters7]

I think I made a thread on this issue way back when, basically saying that one has to “get under the surface” of Mormonism. On the surface, at least for me, it did seem attractive: a claimed restoration of Jesus Christ’s original Church. It has apostles and prophets. Ongoing revelation. Temples. Immersion baptism. Its beliefs seem pretty simple. I liked its teachings on what happens to unbaptized infants, as well as redemption of the dead. I also liked that I could disassociate myself from various difficult historical matters related to Catholicism.

But when you get under the surface, you realize that things really aren’t as simple as they seem. The prophets don’t prophesy, or do anything different than the non-prophet leaders of other religions. Gone are the days of speaking of revelations and visions; now, even if they do occur, they are too sacred to discuss. Priesthood/temple restriction of blacks (this was a big one for me), and all the associated teachings. The Book of Mormon can’t be placed in actual history/geography, and the LDS apologists don’t all agree on the matter (the church itself says nothing). Heavenly Mother. The Father progressed to Godhood. Book of Abraham issues. Adam=God. When is the prophet speaking as a prophet?

Mormonism is a lot easier to swallow when you just stick to the surface. One of my LDS friends said exactly that way back when when we were discussing my doubts (ultimately leading to reversion back to the Catholic faith). While Catholicism certainly has had its issues, they don’t really require the mental gymnastics and the mental shelf that many require to remain LDS after learning of difficult issues (I tried to do this with the priesthood/temple restriction, didn’t work).

 

[iepuras]

I can offer a couple of answers of why there are a lot of Catholics that become Mormon.

The first is that Catholicism is a a faith that embraces many others. An example of that is how it accepts the baptisms of other churches (although not Mormon baptism). In general, its membership has not been indoctrinated against other religions but embraces them. Much to its credit.

The second is that the Mormon doctrine can seem like an improvement over the Catholic doctrine without departing from it very much. On the subject of the Trinity, I don’t think most people realize how close their two positions are. Mormons use the term “Godhead” instead of Trinity and believe everything the Catholics do expect that they are literally three persons. I think the doctrine of the trinity is difficult to understand and there are a lot of finer points that many Christians don’t understand and the LDS teaching is, in contract, are very easy to understand. As a missionary, I have met people who read the story of St. Stephan’s vision of The Father and Son standing side by side and interpreted that as disproof of the Trinity but it isn’t.

Another teaching uniquely LDS and not well understood is what happens to unbaptized. LDS teach infant baptism is not necessary and there is baptism by proxy on behalf of the dead. But all the other elements of the Catholic teaching are retained: baptism is necessary and it must be performed by a member of the priesthood.

Other teachings that are uniquely Mormon and don’t really contradict the Catholic teaching is 1.) The pre-existence of spirits and 2.) The three possible kingdoms assigned after death. The Mormons even call purgatory the spirit world and in the sense that’s where you go while you await the Second Coming, they are consistent with the Catholic teaching (as I understand it)

I know my comments will not be appreciated by people who like to make a big deal of the doctrinal differences between Catholic and LDS but put yourself in the position of someone who is earnest and open and raised in Catholic doctrine but not a scholar of it, these teachings are new, exciting and build on what you know and expands them.

If you think that Catholic and LDS beliefs are very similar, then you must not really know what the Catholic Church teaches. In all honesty, I thought I knew what the Catholic Church taught when I was LDS, but it wasn’t until I left the LDS church and started studying Catholicism in earnest that I realized how different the teachings really are. They are nothing alike.

I echo Stephen’s comments. The Trinity does not equal the Mormon godhead in any way. God the Father is spirit and does not have a physical body, unlike Heavenly Father. Hell, Purgatory and Heaven have very little in common with the three degrees of glory and outer darkness. Purgatory is not a permanent state. Once souls are purified, they enter into Heaven. It is not the equivalent of the Mormon “spirit prison”. Also, the saints in Heaven do not have marital relations to create spirit bodies for intelligences. The priesthood is not required to perform baptism. Baptism is ordinarily performed by a priest or deacon, but because baptism is so necessary, it can be performed by anyone in an emergency situation so long as the form and matter are correct. Many nurses and midwives have baptized infants who were in danger of imminent death. Women baptizing! Oh the horror!

One of the new inquirers in my parish, was Protestant, converted to Mormonism, left the LDS church and is now investigating the Catholic Church. I recently spoke to her about her experience in the LDS church. She told me that she joined the LDS church because it “felt good”, she liked the idea of eternal families and she was given the hard sell by the missionaries. She told me that if she had done proper due diligence, she never would have joined. I believe her experience is not uncommon.