Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

Regarding your offer, Tom, to have a one-on-one conversation with me, i welcome that! With this goal in mind, i’m curious about something: Do you think the best, and strongest, and most compelling reason to become a Mormon is already in the list, or is there another reason that you think i should consider?

The only reason to align oneself with a specific religion is to fulfill the will of God for your life.
The reason I am a LDS is that I am convinced that God desires me to be a LDS.

As I have focused on intellectual issues here, I should say that it was originally an intellectual weighing that brought me to the CoJCoLDS. The intellectual strength of the CoJCoLDS has only grown since those first days and years as a LDS despite my focus upon anti-Mormonism and Catholic apologetics.

That being said, the other aspect for me (the later aspect in my case, but the original aspect in most LDS case) is that I have communicated with God concerning the truth of the CoJCoLDS. I learned it is His church and He desires that I contribute my time, talents, and other things with which He has bless me. That being said, individual communication with God is something that cannot be imprinted upon another. My “testimony” is my own and can not be given to anyone else. The fact that God communicated with me can be shared in that He might communicate to you or others, but you cannot (and indeed should not) become a LDS because God communicated with me.

The personal nature of God’s communication with me is the reason that I focus on intellectual based issues when discussing the pros and cons of religions. I believe the Bible is far more of an “ask God” book than a “let’s reason together” book; but both have there place in our search.

Let me offer three things lest they are missed:

• The Con list is filled with dubious assertions that would take time to address. Things like “absolutely zero,” or “likely a conman” do not have a place in a pro/con list for a true seeker. They are conclusion based statements not investigation based statements.
• The length and/or quality of the pros and cons do not matter as much as truth. Toward this end there are a few things mentioned above, but another important aspect is that if a religion has something in absolute conflict internally, with God, or … this something if unresolvable is a likely a disqualifier (that is if you will place significant weight upon reason in your decision).
• If you are really a fan of philosophy you might pursue this thread. The first thread has a little prelude mentioning this thread that I mostly edited out in the second thread, but neither has gotten much attention (though the second one has one response now). Also, Ostler’s books are terrific.
  http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217571
  http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932

Assuming you are really investigating the CoJCoLDS, this site has far too few LDS to adequately deal with the plethora of errors in your CON list.

Charity, TOm

 

[why_me]

Assuming you are really investigating the CoJCoLDS, this site has far too few LDS to adequately deal with the plethora of errors in your CON list.

Charity, TOm

Soc can head over to:

ldsforums.net

                 or

mormonapologetics.org

 

[lukewarm]

Pro’s:

1. I think they do a better job of actually living like Christians than most Christians.
2. Encourage large families and family togetherness
3. They have a strong social support system kinda like Catholics did in the 1800’s.

Con’s

1. Well if it’s wrong you can expect to be worshipping and believing incredibly blasphemous things, but that can probably be said for any religion. I mean if Catholics are wrong we worship a piece of bread like it was God, can’t think of a worse form of idolatory than that.

 

[truthsilence]

TOm,
If you don’t mind responding, as LDS, how did you come to terms with #43 from the ‘con’ side?

Peace,
ts

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm,

If you don’t mind responding, as LDS, how did you come to terms with #43 from the ‘con’ side?

Peace,
ts
I do not believe that Joseph Smith taught this. I think that Joseph Smith taught that God the Father was incarnate just as Jesus Christ was incarnate. The KFD used John 5:19 which would seem to indicate that God the Father was divine pre-incarnation just as LDS believe Christ was divine pre-incarnation. Thus, God the Father, like God the Son, was never a man JUST LIKE US. Instead, God the Father was a man just like God the Son, which was what Joseph Smith was saying by using John 5:19.
Now, I will not deny that there have been LDS leaders who after Joseph Smith suggested that the KFD means what is stated in #43. But, there have been LDS leaders like President Hinckley and President Joseph Fielding Smith who have urged caution concerning this thought that God the Father was once just a man.
So, my personal view is that God the Father was fully divine before He became man just like Christ. I find nothing in scriptures to suggest that I am wrong and much to suggest I am correct. Still, I think it is fine if others believe differently; though I have become willing to dialogue on this toward inviting others to embrace my view.

Now, men can become gods is clearly true (and Biblical) so if you want to disagree about something than many choose to disagree with me here.

Charity, TOm

 

[CapaxDei]

The big con is that it’s not true. That should be enough.

 

[NewSeeker]

*God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.

–Joseph Smith*

Joseph Smith declared as revelation the fact that God himself was once as “we are now.” I don’t know about you, but I never was divine prior to my “incarnation” and I don’t any of us that can be so characterized. Joseph said clearly that God was once like us - fallible, sinful, mortal, and was eventually exalted. He did not say that God was like Jesus, i.e., divine prior to his incarnation. Seems pretty clear to me that Joseph Smith taught that God was once “merely” a man.

NewSeeker

 

[RebeccaJ]

what was the main reason you left the LDS church?

It’s a long story. I don’t know that I have a main reason. It was more like a gradual deconstruction at first, and then a period in my life about 3 or 4 years ago where I madly deconstructed myself to the point of nihilism, literally, within about a year.

I started questioning mormonism when I was around 14 or 15 years old. At that time it was mainly this idea or notion that I was being groomed to be nothing but a servant to a worthy male mormon. I couldn’t see myself as that, more like, I wanted anything but that.

The Equal Rights Amendment was big national news in the US then. What I heard sounded reasonable to me. I thought it was really a cool thing.

At church, and in my home, the ERA was being touted as the latest subversion from Satan himself. People were talking about a mormon woman named Sonia Johnson who spoke FOR the ERA in a congressional hearing. People were saying what an evil woman she was. For her efforts, Johnson was excommunicated.

That was the catalyst for me questioning everything. I was raised that you don’t question anything that mormonism tells you, anytime, in any way. You just soak it in like a sponge and agree to it all.

I started doing tests, against all the things that my church said God would be angry at me for. Drinking coca cola. Using mild swear words. Going to R rated movies. Trying coffee. No horrible calamities struck me down. My health didn’t fail. My happiness didn’t end.

Then I started dating, and soon enough started testing out the morality rules I had been taught. Feeling guilty about it all, I went to my bishop and confessed. He told me that he couldn’t believe that I was pretending to be such an upstanding member of the church while all the while behaving as I was. He asked me what my parents would think if they knew. I was horrified. My head was spinning and I felt like I was going to pass out.

I felt worse coming out of that confession than I did going in. He never said anything about being forgiven, not that I remember. But I felt so sick, literally, like I was going to throw up. My ears were ringing, so maybe he did and I didn’t hear him. I do remember he said to stop, which I had already done. And I set myself to try harder.

Morality is a constant lesson for teens in the mormon church. In one of these lessons the teacher pulled out a nice new sanded piece of wood, which she said represented us girls. Then she hammered a nail into it and said that represented sin. Then she removed the nail and said that is what forgiveness did, removed the sin. But, she pointed out that the board was no longer clean and perfect. It was marred forever.

I took that lesson to heart, and I knew right then and there that I would never be worthy of anything that God promised. I was trying so hard. I viewed my own normal sexual desire as wrong. In all those lessons no one ever explained that sexual desire was normal, and so I believed well into my adult years that sexual desire itself was wrong and contrary to being a good person that God loved. It took another adult telling me that I was normal. Up to that time I thought I was some perverse weirdo.

Anyway, I lost interest, of the whole religion, from top to bottom. It was like a switch went off inside of me and I just didn’t care. I don’t think I knew of a way to be what mormonism was telling me I had to be.

When I got married I just stopped being mormon, forever.

A few years after I got married the Joseph Campbell interviews with Bill Moyer were aired on PBS, and I watched them with great interest. It was the first time that I had heard any explanations about other belief systems outside of mormonism. I bought the book and was amazed about the similarities between all the beliefs of the world. And that pulverized the belief that mormonism was special.

Then I bought a book about early mormonism. And it was the first time I read about Joseph Smith’s arrests for treasure hunting. And all the other things about him that I certainly never learned in a mormon classroom. I was shocked at what had been kept from me. It was like some dirty family secret that no one talks about and I had to discover it on my own.

Life went on, I didn’t really care about religion, let alone mormonism. And one day, sitting at a red light, I had this incredible insight that I didn’t have to believe in God at all. I was never so damned happy in my life. It was the most wonderful feeling, like I had been set free. And I stayed atheists for a good 15 years or so.

 

[RebeccaJ]

dup or something

 

[TOmNossor]

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.

–Joseph Smith
The above statement if made about Jesus Christ would be true within Catholicism and Mormonism and it would align with the scriptures that we both and LDS individually accept.

D&C 20:17 says:
“There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…”

This statement in LDS and Catholic thought is true of God the Father, but it is also applicable to God the Son. To apply this to God the Son requires some provisions within Catholic and LDS thought, but nobody would deny that it is true.

Joseph Smith’s statement you quoted can be neglected by LDS since it is not canonized and accepted by common consent. However, since Joseph Smith built this statement from John 5:19, I have suggested that one way of understanding what Joseph Smith meant is that God the Father, like God the Son was once as we are now and is an exalted man. That does not mean that an eternity ago God the Father (or God the Son for that matter) was not fully divine. D&C 20:17 and other BOM/Biblical scriptures IMO precludes the view you say Joseph Smith must have held. I do not believe that Joseph Smith held this view and I do not hold it myself.
Again, President Hinckley and President Joseph Fielding Smith both suggested caution when defining what was meant by God the Father being once a man.
And interestingly enough St. Irenaeus rather than condemning the view that there was a God above God suggested that it was not prudent to explore such things.

Now, do you believe that God the Father was once not God and became God after progressing? If so, I do not have a problem with your view, I just do not agree with it.
I personally, together with numerous LDS who have studied this issue believe that God the Father was God before and during His incarnation just like God the Son. Of course, there are folks who agree with your position. And, there are certainly other positions including ones that ignore non-scriptural teachings completely.

Joseph Smith declared as revelation the fact that God himself was once as “we are now.” I don’t know about you, but I never was divine prior to my “incarnation” and I don’t any of us that can be so characterized.
But Jesus Christ was divine prior to His incarnation. Since Joseph Smith built this sermon upon John 5:19, he was speaking about how Christ was similar to the Father. He certainly at points argued that we could become as Christ is now, but all REAL Christians should believe this.

NewSeeker:
Joseph said clearly that God was once like us - fallible, sinful, mortal, and was eventually exalted. He did not say that God was like Jesus, i.e., divine prior to his incarnation. Seems pretty clear to me that Joseph Smith taught that God was once “merely” a man.
Show me where Joseph Smith taught that God the Father (or God the Son) was ever sinful. This did not happen by my review of the facts and it is a key link to why you misread Joseph Smith.
Please source Joseph Smith claiming that God the Father (or God the Son) was sinful. I have yet to read every word Joseph Smith ever said, but forgive me for expecting that critics of the church may be inventing things that they may or may not have reason to invent. Perhaps you think it is there, I just think it is not.

Charity, TOm

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I learned it is His church and He desires that I contribute my time, talents, and other things with which He has bless me. That being said, individual communication with God is something that cannot be imprinted upon another. My “testimony” is my own and can not be given to anyone else. The fact that God communicated with me can be shared in that He might communicate to you or others, but you cannot (and indeed should not) become a LDS because God communicated with me.

This is a great big grapefruit of a slow pitch to knock out of the park, tomnossor!

Of course your “testimony” is your own, that’s a tautological proof.:banghead:

Of course you cannot prove this “testimony” to others, that’s a logical proof.

Of course, every mormon who has ever been backed into a corner about the unChristian origins of his or her ‘religion’ answers with the ol’ ‘burning in the bosom’ ‘Holy Spirit told me so’ bromide about the “truth” of mormonism.

Here is an EASY question for you, tomnossor:

If mormonism is God’s religion, why didn’t He found it instead of some created angel of a prior human form named Moroni?

Or is this one uncomfortable for you to answer, too?

Robert

 

[RAR]

dup or something

Hey! Rebecca… where’s the rest? It looks like there may have been a problem with your post.

RAR

 

[NewSeeker]

Tom, you raise some interesting points, but IMO Jesus never was “as we are now”. Jesus was the Word incarnate, God in the flesh. True, Joseph never said the words “God once sinned”. But the possibility that God once sinned is implied in the statement that God was once “as we are now” - human, fallible, sinful. Joseph didn’t say God was once “as Jesus was”. The emphasis he placed in his words that day was on “we” - Joseph himself and his audience.

Though it is not canonized, Joseph taught that he received this doctrine by revelation and, earlier in the KF Discourse, declared that if he does not in the end have a true grasp of God’s nature then he is a false prophet. It sure sounds like he meant it to be taken doctrinally in my reading and given his stature, what Joseph speaks from revelation must be considered canonized without the need for consular ratification - unless Joseph could err about points of doctrine. If so, that opens up a new can of worms, doesn’t it?

NS

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hey! Rebecca… where’s the rest? It looks like there may have been a problem with your post.

RAR

soc asked why I left mormonism. That’s why I left, and how I left.

I double-posted the same thing somehow and edited to say it was a duplicate post.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;3304743:

I learned it is His church and He desires that I contribute my time, talents, and other things with which He has bless me. That being said, individual communication with God is something that cannot be imprinted upon another. My “testimony” is my own and can not be given to anyone else. The fact that God communicated with me can be shared in that He might communicate to you or others, but you cannot (and indeed should not) become a LDS because God communicated with me.

This is a great big grapefruit of a slow pitch to knock out of the park, tomnossor!

Of course your “testimony” is your own, that’s a tautological proof.

Of course you cannot prove this “testimony” to others, that’s a logical proof.

Of course, every mormon who has ever been backed into a corner about the unChristian origins of his or her ‘religion’ answers with the ol’ ‘burning in the bosom’ ‘Holy Spirit told me so’ bromide about the “truth” of mormonism.

Here is an EASY question for you, tomnossor:

I am not sure how to view your partial quoting of my post. It would seem that you have intentionally misrepresented me. How should I react to such a thing? If this is the type of apologetics you need to participate in to make the case for Catholicism over Mormonism, either you need to get better at apologetics OR Catholicism just is too devoid of truth to defend.
Here is original:

As I have focused on intellectual issues here, I should say that it was originally an intellectual weighing that brought me to the CoJCoLDS. The intellectual strength of the CoJCoLDS has only grown since those first days and years as a LDS despite my focus upon anti-Mormonism and Catholic apologetics.

That being said, the other aspect for me (the later aspect in my case, but the original aspect in most LDS case) is that I have communicated with God concerning the truth of the CoJCoLDS. I learned it is His church and He desires that I contribute my time, talents, and other things with which He has bless me. That being said, individual communication with God is something that cannot be imprinted upon another. My “testimony” is my own and can not be given to anyone else. The fact that God communicated with me can be shared in that He might communicate to you or others, but you cannot (and indeed should not) become a LDS because God communicated with me.
The personal nature of God’s communication with me is the reason that I focus on intellectual based issues when discussing the pros and cons of religions. I believe the Bible is far more of an “ask God” book than a “let’s reason together” book; but both have there place in our search.
Follow this link and convince me that Catholicism could possibly be true.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932

And let me quote the prelude from another:

I mentioned in another thread presumably started by a philosophically minded fellow, that it is the philosophical underpinnings of Catholicism that I consider to be problematic to a disqualifying extent. I believe that Catholic doctrine has developed significantly, but many Catholics acknowledge this and still believe. I believe that the monoepiscopate developed from local churches originally lead by a group of presbyters, but many Catholics acknowledge this and still believe. I believe that the primacy of Rome developed only after a number of centuries, but many Catholics acknowledge this and still believe. I also believe that Catholic apologists, including folks like Patrick Madrid and Jimmy Akin are either unaware of the degree to which the above issues are true or so deemphasize it in their writings that I could think they are unaware. All that being said, I probably could be a Catholic like Cardinal Newman (development), Father Sullivan (mono-episcopate), and Robert Eno (Papacy). I do not believe I possess more evidence than these Catholic men, I just believe I see an option few of them consider. And, the Protestant option is IMO so in opposition to the evidence that I couldn’t choose it. So for all these issues, I could still be a Catholic, I think.

Now, the restoration was begun by God the Father and God the Son. I will be happy to elaborate upon your questions more if you give me reason to believe that you will honestly reproduce my thought and deal with them rather than extract them from context so you may attack what I did not say.
Perhaps you made a mistake when you did this, but it is too common and too detrimental to these discussion to continue.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

The above statement if made about Jesus Christ would be true within Catholicism and Mormonism and it would align with the scriptures that we both and LDS individually accept.

D&C 20:17 says:
“There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…”

This statement in LDS and Catholic thought is true of God the Father, but it is also applicable to God the Son. To apply this to God the Son requires some provisions within Catholic and LDS thought, but nobody would deny that it is true.

Joseph Smith’s statement you quoted can be neglected by LDS since it is not canonized and accepted by common consent. However, since Joseph Smith built this statement from John 5:19, I have suggested that one way of understanding what Joseph Smith meant is that God the Father, like God the Son was once as we are now and is an exalted man. That does not mean that an eternity ago God the Father (or God the Son for that matter) was not fully divine. D&C 20:17 and other BOM/Biblical scriptures IMO precludes the view you say Joseph Smith must have held. I do not believe that Joseph Smith held this view and I do not hold it myself.
Again, President Hinckley and President Joseph Fielding Smith both suggested caution when defining what was meant by God the Father being once a man.
And interestingly enough St. Irenaeus rather than condemning the view that there was a God above God suggested that it was not prudent to explore such things.

Now, do you believe that God the Father was once not God and became God after progressing? If so, I do not have a problem with your view, I just do not agree with it.
I personally, together with numerous LDS who have studied this issue believe that God the Father was God before and during His incarnation just like God the Son. Of course, there are folks who agree with your position. And, there are certainly other positions including ones that ignore non-scriptural teachings completely.

But Jesus Christ was divine prior to His incarnation. Since Joseph Smith built this sermon upon John 5:19, he was speaking about how Christ was similar to the Father. He certainly at points argued that we could become as Christ is now, but all REAL Christians should believe this.

Show me where Joseph Smith taught that God the Father (or God the Son) was ever sinful. This did not happen by my review of the facts and it is a key link to why you misread Joseph Smith.
Please source Joseph Smith claiming that God the Father (or God the Son) was sinful. I have yet to read every word Joseph Smith ever said, but forgive me for expecting that critics of the church may be inventing things that they may or may not have reason to invent. Perhaps you think it is there, I just think it is not.

Charity, TOm

I have never met or known a mormon who believes as you do. You seem to have created your own religion that is a mix of mormon and Catholic beliefs.

 

[NewSeeker]

Hi Tom - we agree that Jesus was divine prior to his incarnation. In LDS cosmology, God is the father of our spirits, which were first “intelligences”, and Jesus is the first born spirit child of the Father. In your understanding of LDS teaching, was Jesus created spiritually as divine or did he earn his divinity in the pre-mortal realm? Or was he divine as an “intelligence”? I know of no official pronouncement on this issue and have never heard one in my lifetime of church membership. Regardless, what are your thoughts? I’m sure you can see the logical implications and new questions that follow from the possible answers.

NS

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Tom;

It is similar to what you post on the ‘Mormon Abortion’ thread re Kierkegaard: he was NOT Catholic, he was Danish Lutheran.

You throw so many things out in a flippant manner and expect the oohs and ahhs and “where do we sign up for the priesthood” cries from us.

The fact is: mormon pantheology is the PROBLEM.

It is NOT Christian. We don’t care a whit about ‘personal testimony’ or ‘burning in the bosoms’ here.

Many of us are exmormons and are very knowledgeable about the techniques of arguing vis-a-vis the mormon way.

I don’t know you, but I know your ‘religion’ and what it believes.
That is problem. Arguing from self-serving absence of proof stances for the mormon church being THE ONE CHURCH of God is ludicrous outside of your stake.

But mormons make great salespeople: they are not afraid of cold calls and are very polite. I’ll give that to the ‘church’.

Robert

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, you raise some interesting points, but IMO Jesus never was “as we are now”. Jesus was the Word incarnate, God in the flesh.

Actually, if you are Catholic, you believe that Jesus is homoousian (consubstantial) with men in His humanity. Except that He was hypostatically united with the divinity, He was in fact “human as we are human.”

But the possibility that God once sinned is implied in the statement that God was once “as we are now” - human, fallible, sinful. Joseph didn’t say God was once “as Jesus was”.

The source point for the discussion was John 5:19. Have you looked that up yet. Joseph Smith did in fact say God was once as Jesus was. And I would suggest the source point being John 5:19 points solidly away from any implication you may see. I remember reading the KFD and exclaiming that it did not say what critics have always told me it said (and it is almost unmentioned in the church, but ubiquitous in the writings of critics).

Though it is not canonized, Joseph taught that he received this doctrine by revelation and, earlier in the KF Discourse, declared that if he does not in the end have a true grasp of God’s nature then he is a false prophet. It sure sounds like he meant it to be taken doctrinally in my reading and given his stature, what Joseph speaks from revelation must be considered canonized without the need for consular ratification - unless Joseph could err about points of doctrine. If so, that opens up a new can of worms, doesn’t it?

LDS prophets from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young to Harold B. Lee opened this can of worms a long time ago. The church recently supported my view of fallible prophets on LDS.org.
Charity, TOm

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I have never met or known a mormon who believes as you do. You seem to have created your own religion that is a mix of mormon and Catholic beliefs.

It could be, Rebecca, that Tomnossor is following what the prior CEO of the LDS church said on Larry King:

“We welcome many people of different faiths and hope they bring the good of those faiths with them to us.” (I paraphrase).

Thus, Tom is merely synthesizing other beliefs to make mormonism more palatable to his ‘testimony.’

You know, I have met quite a few mormons haunting my parish on Sundays and Holy Days. They honestly see no problem going through the motions as if they were Catholics instead of mormons on a lark.

Robert