Persistant Mormons

[Fidelis]

Tmaque:

It is my understanding that LDS missionaries no longer follow a scripted set of discussions. Rather they have a general outline they are to follow and are free to take the discussion where it leads within the allowed framework

Apparently the local Mormon’s here didn’t get that memo.

I take issue with your statement that “LDS are very nice people and they will do anything to help you out–until they find you’re not interested in joining up”. I live in Murray, Ut (in the Salt Lake valley), and am surrounded by LDS neighbors. They have always treated my family and me wonderfully. We have lived here 7 years and have always felt included.

Sorry, but I am also speaking from experience. No doubt Mormons are as nice neighbors as anyone else, but I was primarily speaking about their posture toward strangers that they have targeted for prostelyzation. I could give you many, many examples but here’s just one. A widow I know had some young LDS men come by and say to her that they noticed her yard needed work and offered to clean it up. She gratefully accepted and the next week they were back offering to help paint the house. In addition, woman statred calling from the local LDS stake asking if she needed help with shopping or cooking or whatever. When they started talking about Mormonism, she in no uncertain terms let them know that although she appreciated their help, she was not interested in converting. She never saw or heard from them again.

 

[STIOFAN]

DJMarshall85:

I’ve mentioned the verse about Peter, and their response was that the church was in hiding. But that answer does not make sense does it? Or else Jesus would have said: “Upon this rock I build my church, and then it shall go into hiding for a time.” Also, what of their baptism by proxy? Is there any specific passage I can use with that?

In Christ,
Dean

I’m sure CM is more up to date with the Mormon faith, I only encounter them every few years.

About Baptism of the dead, or proxy, well I remember a Priest quoting a verse from the Bible in his own words.

“Where a tree falls so shall it lie” I took it to mean if you die in your sins, you remain in your sin.

Anyway it’s Ecclesiastes
11:3 If the clouds be full, they will pour out rain upon the earth. If the tree fall to the south, or to the north, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be.

I think the Priest, Fr, Victor to be precise was saying whatever state you die in you remain, (in sin) not discounting temporal punishment in purgatory, and thats different than dying in mortal sin.

I don’t quite grasp this verse myself but it comes to mind sometimes.

If anyone can explain that verse better, be my guest, but in the end sometimes your just :banghead: against the wall.

 

[Jerusha]

If you should choose to talk to a LDS missionary, and I don’t, the best tactic to take would not be to debate theology. The story presented in the book of Mormon, which is foundational to the religion, has no base in archaeology, anthropology, DNA science, geography, or linguistics. NADA. Zilch. There is no ancient Jewish DNA among American Indians. There were no horses, cows, chariots, or other things mentioned in the BOM. Events described in that book are highly improbable.

For some reason, when you present them with that— the whole thing goes Poof!! Avoid the theology-- concentrate on the history. Theology has no concrete proof-- it is a matter of faith. History can be proven within a certain range of probability.

signaturebooks.com/Losing.htm

 

[Casen]

Jerusha,
Um, I’m new here but just wanted to come out of lurking to point out that religion is a matter of faith. Sure, there is historical evidence for SOME events and cities in the Bible but that doesn’t mean we have proof of many other things. Take for example the miracles Jesus performed, the Virgin birth, or the resurrection. How about proof of Adam and Eve? The great flood? You can’t prove that those things occurred. I personally BELIEVE they occurred but I can’t prove it to you. The Book of Mormon is the same way. I don’t expect you to believe it but let’s not hold it up to standards that aren’t also applied to other religious texts like the Bible; that wouldn’t be intellectually honest.

 

[Fidelis]

Casen:

Jerusha,
Um, I’m new here but just wanted to come out of lurking to point out that religion is a matter of faith. Sure, there is historical evidence for SOME events and cities in the Bible but that doesn’t mean we have proof of many other things. Take for example the miracles Jesus performed, the Virgin birth, or the resurrection. How about proof of Adam and Eve? The great flood? You can’t prove that those things occurred. I personally BELIEVE they occurred but I can’t prove it to you. The Book of Mormon is the same way. I don’t expect you to believe it but let’s not hold it up to standards that aren’t also applied to other religious texts like the Bible; that wouldn’t be intellectually honest.

I appreciate your perspective on this, but there are several points where this comparison doesn’t work. Some of the events you cite --the miracles Jesus performed, the Virgin birth, or the resurrection-- are not possible to be proved by physical evidence, even if they happened last week. Others, such as the Flood and Adam & Eve, were said to be in the extremely remote past. As for events related in the Book of Mormon, here’s what the Catholic Answers tract, “Problems With The Book of Mormon” points out:

The Book of Mormon describes a vast pre-Columbian culture that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America. It goes into amazingly specific detail describing the civilizations erected by the “Nephites” and “Lamanites,” who were Jews that fled Palestine in three installments, built massive cities in the New World, farmed the land, produced works of art, and fought large-scale wars which culminated in the utter destruction of the Nephites in A.D. 421. The Latter-Day Saints revere the Book of Mormon as the divinely-inspired record of those people and of Christ’s appearance to them shortly after his crucifixion in Jerusalem.

The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor.

Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.

The embarrassing truth—embarrassing for Mormons, that is—is that no scientist, Mormon or otherwise, has been able to find anything to substantiate that such a great battle took place.

catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp

 

[Jerusha]

Take for example the miracles Jesus performed, the Virgin birth, or the resurrection. These are miracles. The BOM events are fantastic fiction, without any understandable reason for them to be “miracles”-- as something that God did to convince the unbelieving. Most places mentioned in the Bible have been identified.

How about proof of Adam and Eve? The great flood? You can’t prove that those things occurred.

*These are allegories, not to be understood ln a literal sense. They have spiritual meaning, and are to be interpreted as such. They are relevant, and may have occurred, but in a greatly different way than the Bible describes. *

*I cannot believe that God created the world 6000 years ago. This flies in the face of reality. Quite possibly, Biblical fundamentalists of that time had trouble understanding the Indians in the context of literal creation, whether they are truly human as being descendants of Adam and Eve. Thus------:whacky: that piece of fantastic fiction. I know that I (mixed-blood) am a Catholic Christian human being without having to believe in that fantastic piece of fiction, or in Biblical fundamentalist literalism. *

add: And, it is my belief that Joe and friends partially derived the BOM from Indian legends. There is a drop of truth in it, buf, as written, faaaar from what actually happened. I have already written here about that, If you would like to check my past posts.

 

[UtahMaggie]

Tmaque:

It is my understanding that LDS missionaries no longer follow a scripted set of discussions. Rather they have a general outline they are to follow and are free to take the discussion where it leads within the allowed framework.

I take issue with your statement that “LDS are very nice people and they will do anything to help you out–until they find you’re not interested in joining up”. I live in Murray, Ut (in the Salt Lake valley), and am surrounded by LDS neighbors. They have always treated my family and me wonderfully. We have lived here 7 years and have always felt included.

That’s interesting that they no longer follow a script. I thought that was one of the main reasons for the MTC (missionary training center). It’s in Provo, UT which is about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City.

I think it depends on the area you live in. We live in West Jordan (also in the Salt Lake Valley). We are always invited to events because fliers are put on our door. This last Christmas was especially difficult for us because I am currently out of work. Our main concern was food. I spoke with the local LDS bishop who lives two doors down. He saw to it that we had PLENTY of food and even brought us a turkey for us to cook on Christmas day. Never once have we felt any scrutinized because we are Catholic. However, that’s not always the case. Again, I think it just depends on the area you live in. Also, for those of you in Utah, have you noticed that the LDS bishops and higher ups tends to be more friendly and accepting of non-LDS than other LDS members?

Although we rarely get missionaries at our door, when we do I simply tell them that we are completely fulfilled being Catholic. Before they can say anything else, I simply smile and say “But thank you for stopping by” making it very clear that I am closing the door. That way I feel I’ve been polite but also that we are not interested.

One question one could ask in about their temple sealing ceremony. In the ceremony, the family is “sealed together for time and eternity”. I’ve been told that way, when one dies, one of the people they are sealed to will be there waiting to welcome them into heaven. I’ve asked what they believe about those of us who haven’t been sealed. Who will be there to great us. I’ve always been told that they didn’t know the answer to that.

May the Peace of our Lord be with you all,
Maggie

WOW! I was all over the map with this post!

 

[Casen]

Fidelis,
“The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon.”

Actually, there’s lots of evidence. I’d be happy to supply a list of things, perhaps on another thread. But keep in mind that only about seven to eight percent of biblical locations have been identified and were it not for toponyms (preserved names) we wouldn’t even have those. There are ruins throughout North and South America but no toponyms so it’s nearly impossible to identify the names of the cities.

Anyway, my point wasn’t to defend the Book of Mormon here. My point was that religion is a matter of faith. I can’t prove to you that Jesus Christ performed miracles, was crucified, and rose on the third day. I believe it with all my heart, I have felt the Holy Spirit testify to me that they did indeed happen, but I can’t prove it. And just as those things are a matter of faith, including the Bible, so is the Book of Mormon.

Jerusha,
OK, I see where you’re coming from; the Bible is allegorical. But if Christ didn’t REALLY perform miracles, wasn’t REALLY the Son of God and didn’t REALLY resurrect on the third day, then he isn’t REALLY a person I should worship, is he?

And if the Bible is just allegorical fiction, with some fact mixed in, and as you say the Book of Mormon is also fiction with some facts mixed in, are they both of equal value? What make one “fictional” book better than another “fictional” book?

 

[Jerusha]

Although we rarely get missionaries at our door, when we do I simply tell them that we are completely fulfilled being Catholic. Before they can say anything else, I simply smile and say “But thank you for stopping by” making it very clear that I am closing the door. That way I feel I’ve been polite but also that we are not interested.

Exactly where I am coming from.

Casen, excellent open-minded post for a LDS. I hope that if your church survives its present crisis, there will some day be more like you.

Yes, I believe in miracles. I don’t believe in unlikely fiction. There is a distinct difference.

 

[tkdnick]

Casen:

OK, I see where you’re coming from; the Bible is allegorical. But if Christ didn’t REALLY perform miracles, wasn’t REALLY the Son of God and didn’t REALLY resurrect on the third day, then he isn’t REALLY a person I should worship, is he?

Jesus REALLY did perform miracle. He REALLY is God. He REALLY did ressurect on the third day. And He REALLY is worthy of your worship.

 

[tkdnick]

To get back to the thread topic…

As it suggests in When Mormons Call, if you are going to converse with the LDS missionaries that come to your door you must first understand your faith. Then you must understand their faith. This would include both “pro-mormon” sources and “anti-mormon” sources. As much as I love Catholic Answer, I do not think that the information provided on the website is enough to have an adequate discussion. You must be able to not only show how what they believe isn’t true, but also why what you believe is true. You must be willing to get on a topic and stick to it until you get an adequate answer. And you must always do it all with charity.

 

[Casen]

Jesus REALLY did perform miracle. He REALLY is God. He REALLY did ressurect on the third day. And He REALLY is worthy of your worship

Tkdnick,
I believe that too. I was pointing out that if the Bible is all allegorical as Jerusha seemed to be arguing I don’t find too much value in it.

Jerusha,
I must be out of the loop. What is the current LDS crisis the church may not survive?

Regarding the topic at hand, as a former LDS missionary I can tell you that SOME missionaries will be willing to discuss both sides with you but others will want to stick with their presentation and won’t really be interested in listening too much. It comes down to each personality. I frankly enjoy other religions and cultures and tried to have a two way discussion with people, but other missionaries just want to focus on presenting.
I served in South America and for six months lived with a very active Catholic family and had endless discussions about religion with them. I went to mass with them on several occasions and they attended my church with me. I had a great relationship with them. I think we each learned a great deal about each others religion but in the end neither side budged much. If that’s all you’re interested in then go right ahead. If you hope to convert them then you’re probably wasting your time. In a mission with 270 missionaries for two years I never saw a single missionary convert to another religion, although a handful were sent home for disorderly conduct. Anyway, that’s my take.

 

[tkdnick]

Casen:

Tkdnick,
I believe that too. I was pointing out that if the Bible is all allegorical as Jerusha seemed to be arguing I don’t find too much value in it.

Here is kind of a simple way of how I come to the truth of the Bible.

1. We know there is a God.
2. Since there is a God, there must be an account of Him.
3. This would bring us to the OT.
4. The OT prophesies of a savior.
5. If there was a savior, there must be an account of Him.
6. This would bring us to the NT.

I think it WAY TOO SIMPLE to just say either the Bible is literal or allegorical. It is both.

 

[Casen]

RE: I think it WAY TOO SIMPLE to just say either the Bible is literal or allegorical. It is both.

Agreed. I thought Jerusha was saying it was only allegorical. Perhaps I misunderstood him.

 

[Jerusha]

A mix of allegory and truth.

 

[tkdnick]

A mix of allegory and truth.

I would say it’s ALL truth. Some is allegorical truth, some is literal truth.

 

[Jerusha]

2 Kings

15:33 He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Jerusha the daughter of Zadok.

And allegory contains a moral lesson-- therefore is also truth.

 

[Casen]

Jerusha:
The story presented in the book of Mormon, which is foundational to the religion, has no base in archaeology, anthropology, DNA science, geography, or linguistics. NADA. Zilch.

Me:
Sure, there is historical evidence for SOME events and cities in the Bible but that doesn’t mean we have proof of many other things. Take for example the miracles Jesus performed, the Virgin birth, or the resurrection…You can’t prove that those things occurred. I personally BELIEVE they occurred but I can’t prove it to you.

Jerusha:
These are allegories, not to be understood in a literal sense. They have spiritual meaning, and are to be interpreted as such. They are relevant, and may have occurred, but in a greatly different way than the Bible describes.

Jerusha:
Yes, I believe in miracles. I don’t believe in unlikely fiction. There is a distinct difference.

Me:
Please explain the difference. When I told my Buddhist colleague from Malaysia the story of Christ he told me it sounded like unlikely fiction. Think about it, if you had never heard the story of Christ and someone explained it to you for the first time when you were an adult it would sound pretty incredible. God became a man, unjustly suffered terribly and was killed and then overcame death to rise again on the third day. Wouldn’t that sound pretty wild to you? Perhaps a little bit like “unlikely fiction.”

I submit that you don’t believe those things are true because of evidence or proof. I submit that you believe them to be true because you felt that they are true. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has testified to you that they are true. And at that point you exercise FAITH. That’s why I suggest that you’re wrong to suggest the missionaries try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through archeological evidence. They simply won’t bite. They can’t prove the Book of Mormon is true any more than you can prove Jesus performed mighty miracles. The whole point of the missionary discussions is to create a situation where they can testify of truth and then let the Holy Spirit touch the heart of the listener. Catholics of all people should understand this since that has been the basis of their worldwide missionary efforts for centuries.

 

[petra]

Casen:

I submit that you don’t believe those things are true because of evidence or proof. I submit that you believe them to be true because you felt that they are true. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has testified to you that they are true. And at that point you exercise FAITH. That’s why I suggest that you’re wrong to suggest the missionaries try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through archeological evidence. They simply won’t bite. They can’t prove the Book of Mormon is true any more than you can prove Jesus performed mighty miracles. The whole point of the missionary discussions is to create a situation where they can testify of truth and then let the Holy Spirit touch the heart of the listener. Catholics of all people should understand this since that has been the basis of their worldwide missionary efforts for centuries.

Faith is an investment of trust and commitment–it is belief that is acted upon–and it is only as efficacious as the trustworthiness of the object of that faith. Small faith that is based in a trustworthy object is better than large faith that is placed in an untrustworthy object. Of course large faith in a trustworthy object is the best of all, but the point is: blind faith can be futile and dangerous.

The authenticity of scripture can, indeed, be proven to a highly reasonable degree. Science, history, and archeology may not be able to verify every event, but many can be. For example, we would not expect to find archeological evidence of Jesus walking on water. This is common sense. I will grant that the BOM account of Jesus preaching to the Nephites falls in the same category. If it really occurred, we would not expect to find physical evidence of that.

But we would expect to find evidence of civilizations mentioned in alleged scriptural books. The Bible has enormous archeological integrity. In stark contrast, there is absolutely no physical evidence of the civilizations the BOM discusses. In every instance that we would expect to find evidence, there is none. And there is much evidence to the contrary. As previously implied, Native American DNA does not reveal that they are descendents of the Jews. They are from Asia and migrated from Asia to Alaska.

This is holding the Bible and the BOM to the same standard of criteria.

 

[DJMarshall85]

Casen:

Jerusha,
OK, I see where you’re coming from; the Bible is allegorical. But if Christ didn’t REALLY perform miracles, wasn’t REALLY the Son of God and didn’t REALLY resurrect on the third day, then he isn’t REALLY a person I should worship, is he?

Jerusha is right, to a point. They church teaches that some things in the bible can be taken figuratively, such as the world being created in 7 days. But as far as Adam and Eve, the flood, etc., the magesterium teaches that those events ACTUALLY happened (whether or not you think the Earth was created in 7 days or 4 billion years). So yes, in a sense, some things can be taken in a figurative sense, but we have to be careful we don’t not extend those things to matters of faith, such as Adam and Eve, the Fall, Jesus’ miracles, etc.

And to everyone else who has been posting on this thread, THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! You have been helping out bunches!

In Christ,
Dean