Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[J_C]

I am first a theist, because I KNOW God. I am second a Christian, because I see how lost I am without Christ. I am third a LDS, because intellectually its case is strongest AND spiritually (for me individually) its case is strongest. BTW, I was a LDS before I had a traditional testimony on the intellectual strength of the church.

tom, the Op has been questioning zerinius about how he can know that the bom is true. zerines says that he needs no intellectual activity but that the Holy Ghost witnesses directly to him in such a way that there can be no mistaking that it is the HG witnessing, and that what the HG witnessess about the bom is true.

you seem to be saying that you arrived at the conviction tha the bom is true by means of thinking about it. Do i understand you to be saying that you disagree with zerrineus in this matter? if so, how would you characterize your disagreement, or if I have misunderstood you, in what way have i done so?

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ;3291488:

From the very limited exposure I have had to your thoughts on Catholicism (concerning infallibility), I would suggest that the books are available for you concerning Catholicism too, but you have not sought them out.

I understand infallibility. Believe me, following an authoritarian religion was a huge concern of mine. It took me quite some time and a lot of reading to understand the Papacy and the hierarchy of the church. That I didn’t use the exact terms doesn’t mean that I don’t understand.

The Catholic in the pew knows less about their religion than the LDS in the pew. The faithful Catholic in the pew is similar to the faithful LDS in the pew. This is by my observation.

I am not a theologian or a canonist, and I am a Catholic “newbie”. I do read, quite a bit, and learn more every day.

But, it is only the Catholic and LDS apologist that can parse the infallibility definition properly. Who knows about Joseph Smith’s sealings to men and married women and can put them in context.

This is just silly and rather egocentric.

I can understand very well infallibility. And I understand very well the context of Smith’s libido.

I read a lot of mormon literature, of the type that mormons would view as “safe”. I read the mormon apologetics board, and all I see there are excuses for error and false doctrines. And, quite a bit of anti-Christian and anti-Catholic views…always trying to prove a great apostasy.

It is unfortunate when any religion fails to introduce its adherent to God.

They introduced me, just, it was a false god that I had a hard time believing in.

I remember sitting in Catholic Sunday School thinking the girls who were sniffing the mimeograph paper didn’t recognize the importance of getting a good religious education like I recognized.

Seriously, could you be any more condescending? I wasn’t sniffing mimeograph paper. I was doing everything I was told to do. It all came up empty. And I was left with the impression for many years that all of religion was empty and that God did not in fact exist at all.

I do not believe that you “made up” what you claim to have been taught. I do believe that 20 years ago sermons on “blood atonement” did not occur. Sermons on “divine fornication” did not occur.

Yes, they did. In my seminary class. I realize today that a lot of the more weirder stuff I learned in seminary. And now and then I hear my mormon relatives complain about a child being taught something strange in their seminary class.

This is a problem with mormonism that I clearly recognize for what it is. A religion with no orthodoxy winds up with people teaching whatever it is that they believe personally. This is not the fault of the children being taught.

So when you speak of this as if it was somehow a integral part of the church, I find this problematic.

It is integral to the mormon church for the reason I stated…no orthodoxy.

The evidence from writings and recordings is that Christ and His divine life, atonement, death, & resurrection were clearly taught even 20, 40, 180 years ago. These other things are emphasized by anti-cultists not LDS.

Yes, I was taught these things. The kicker for me was “repentance”. By the time I was in my midteens I knew, with absolute certainty, that I would never be worthy of God’s Love, and therefore, I knew that God did not love me. This is what I learned as a mormon.

I will however acknowledge, the CoJCoLDS has changed over 20 years, but if you do not see development in Catholic teachings in 20 years you are not looking close enough. I could provide the apologetic responses to any of the half dozen things I could mention that have been growing in emphasis since Vatican II, but if you cannot see change (development) you are not looking.

Developments are one thing, change in doctrines are quite another.

I also believe you emphasize negative aspects over positive aspects

You are correct, I see no positive aspects of mormonism. It is a false religion that is based on false assertations and teaches about a false god. That is my true opinion.

and your statements about LDS charity are uninformed or uncharitable.

Not really.

This thread started asking for pro’s and con’s for the CoJCoLDS. I personally believe that a Catholic board is a poor place to explore the pro’s of the CoJCoLDS, but I thought I would help a little.

I have no problem with people presenting pros as they see it. It seems to me however that you would prefer that people don’t present the cons as we see it.

I do not know where you stand on my salvation

I have no stand on your salvation, that is up to the True God.

 

[talter]

I am first a theist, because I KNOW God.
I am second a Christian, because I see how lost I am without Christ.
I am third a LDS, because intellectually its case is strongest AND spiritually (for me individually) its case is strongest. BTW, I was a LDS before I had a traditional testimony on the intellectual strength of the church.

Just curious in what sense are you using “intellectually it’s case is strongest”.

It is truly my opinion that you left a religion you did not understand as well as one would desire. Unlike Keating, I do not wish to say that your misperceptions are a product of your angst, but I maintain that a proper understanding of Mormonism allows for prophets who are not infallible.
I would also suggest that the Bible is quite clear that Jonah prophesied falsely the destruction of Ninevah. To understand what a prophet is we must recognize that prophets are not infallible and do make errors.

Prophets are infallible, if they are wrong they are not truly prophets of God… Jonah was not wrong when he said that God would destroy Ninevah. God did say that. However you have taken Jonah out of the context of the Old Testament. Prior to Jonah God told his people in Jeremiah that he reserves the right to change his mind if people repent as well as the option to revoke his favor if they turn away from him: Jer 18:7-10

7At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

We see in Jonah that the King and his people knew this and thus repented incurring God’s approval. Now you could make the case that Joseph Smith was not a false prophet. But then that would mean that Mormons turned away from God. The Mormon’s in Missouri incurred God’s wrath by not being faithful and thus the temple in Independence would not be built. However history and the words of other Mormons posting in other threads have stated they were driven out by the Missourians as opposed to God driving them out due to their wickedness. So either JS was a false prophet, the Mormons were wicked and thus incurred God’s wrath (delivered via the Missourians as instruments of God) or the Missourians thwarted God’s plan. I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible of an instance where God’s word was thwarted by an outside influence (3rd party to God and the individual(s) with whom he is dealing). As we’ve seen already God can be influenced by the individual(s) to which He is dealing with, but not by an outside influence has he been shown to by deterred. My money is on A.

This is one of your less objectionable statements. To be a LDS IMO is not to “believe right.” I would suggest that the emphasis upon orthodoxy present in Catholicism is a development not a product of the apostolic church.

That development is a product of the Apostolic church. Christ planted the seed from which the Church grew. He sowed the Apostles who in turn bore the fruit of Christ. That fruit delivered the seed by which the Church continues to grow. Try reading the Church fathers St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement, St. Justyn Martyr and you will find the church has not changed.

Here’s a simple example of how development does not mean divergence. I give you an item that I tell you can convey people from point a to point b. If you then examine that item and determine that it has an internal combustion engine to provide the power you have not changed the teaching of my first statement only provided a more clear understanding of what the item is. Again if upon further study go on to say that in order for the engine to run properly the air to fuel ratio should be close to 14:1 you again have not changed the basic truth that the item conveys a person from point a to point b. Christ said this is my Body and this is my Blood. That is the truth. To then further refine that down to the more detailed explanation within Transubstantiation does not change the truth that the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood.

 

[zerinus]

Tom i have seen you comment on Jonah twice and would like to note that you appear to be ignoring the fact that Nineveh repented enmasse which is the cause of God relenting the destruction of the place. God had told Jonah in no uncertain terms that he intended to destry Nineveh, but relented when the entire population at the urging of their leaders donned sackcloth and ashes and repented of the sins that caused God to be angry. According to my own learnings on this book, the story is about Jonah and his attitude rather than about a prophecy of Nineveh, which may be mythological along the lines of Job, though I accept it as fact.

That is the whole point. The (apparently) failed prophecy of Jonah finds its exact parallel with the (supposedly) failed prophecy of Joseph Smith, which apostates and anti-Mormons like to bring up. Either Jonah’s prophecy failed, or Joseph Smith’s didn’t, because they are exact parallels. To maintain a different position is nothing short of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and double standards.

zerinus

 

[TOmNossor]

Do you believe that just because I left your church, that I forgot everything I was taught?

Not at all. As I said later on, I believe you didn’t find faith or God and left Mormonism. I also believe that you were not taught “blood atonement” or “divine intercourse,” even though you brought this up in you first post on this thread. I also believe that as a non-LDS you have breathed deeply from those critical of the church. Your view of history is skewed by this. If you read Rough Stone Rolling as a member, you like many members would have been shocked by the negative things Bushmen discusses. If you read Rough Stone Rolling today, you would find the negative old hat, but would likely see some amazing aspects of Joseph Smith’s life.

mormonism is based entirely on a premise that there was a great or universal apostasy, which has never been proven, and never will be proven, as it never happened.

I found the apostasy as I read, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Nibley and Barker.
Newman was quite good, but has been largely ignored by modern Catholic apologetics.
I bet Father Sullivan’s Apostles and Bishops would shock you more than Bushman.
Much of my thoughts on the apostasy are here:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4383

This was before I read Nibley Apostles and Bishops and Father Sullivan **From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church **& Eno’s The Rise of the Papacy. There is much more in these three books (two Catholic one LDS about the same things) that speaks of apostasy of authority.

I have read Newman. An influence of different cultures does not make Catholicism a pagan religion.

I agree. And neither does adoption of feast days and … That was my point in response to your concern of Freemasonary and Mormonism.

My mistake. Your timing was on the heals of whyme’s postings at madb.

I came here in response to Tsuzuki, but I see Whyme invited folks here. My arrival is not coincidence I reckon.

ex cathedra then.

Yes, without this infallibility is undefendable. Now how do you know when the Pope is speaking “ex cathedra?” I maintain there is no answer, but you can search if you like.
If you like you can attempt to answer my question above to NewSeeker.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Then you already know that Christ appointed no prophet as his successor. He appointed apostles.
Actually, the prerogatives of Peter are the prerogatives claimed by the LDS Prophet. The prerogatives of the Pope are quite different on a few points than those that Catholics and LDS believe Peter had. This by itself is a pro-LDS argument.

RebeccaJ:

The Bishop of Rome is the successor, in the truest sense that mormons deny out of need to have that great apostasy.

The succession is quite sketchy.

• Paul was likely in Rome long before Peter.
• Paul ordained Linus and Cletus not Peter.
• Peter, Paul, Linus, Cletus, and Clement all lived together in Rome. The historical record supports the view that Linus, Cletus, and Clement were like LDS Bishops and Peter and Paul were general authorities. It does not support the view that Peter ruled the world church from Rome, then Linus ruled the world church from Rome, then Clement ruled the world church from Rome.
• The earliest references to the primacy of Rome refer to the dual episcopate not to Peterine primacy.
• Peter founded Antoich and ordained its first Bishop before he went to Rome why is the Bishop of Antioch not Pope.
• Oh and speaking of Pope, early documents use the term translated as Pope when applied to the Bishop of Rome for many other Bishops, but it is usually translated Father when applied to non-Roman Bishops.
  And …

The Apostles were infallible when speaking about faith and morals.

This is not so clear in the Bible or the early church.

I do not agree the Bible is teaching that orthodoxy is as important as it became in Catholicism. I think Christ would find the schisms in the absence of Supernatural Revelation that occurred at Nicea and during the Semi-Arian conflicts to be wrong.

As I said, at the local level. If it were just little old me, outside of any large natural disaster, and I went to whoever is the local bishop, I know that whatever “charity” was given would be at a price…missionaries at my door.

If the CoJCoLDS is God’s church this is a benefit not a cost. But local parishes are generally not equipped as well to provide assistance to non-members as local wards are in any case. It is through Catholic Charities that one can get individual assistance. LDS have similar programs.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

It is true that a prophet or the Pope ought not to have to lead us by the nose in all things. But when a man claims to have received a revelation directly from God (a prophet) that claim had better turn out to be true or the “prophet” is either self-deceived or a liar. Despite Brigham’s many organizational and leadership gifts, I do not consider him to be a prophet - in part for this very reason. His was not a reliable witness, precisely because he claimed to be a prophet - someone who talks directly to God. That is a far more lofty claim than what any pope (to my knowledge) has made and Brigham must therefore be held to a higher standard.

NS
It is a more lofty claim than those made by Popes, but it is the same claim as those made by the apostles.
Also, I guarantee you that if Paul and James had their words parsed like LDS prophets do that they would be viewed as having taught false doctrine.
I do not see infallibility in Biblical prophets or apostles.

BTW, the “New Perspective on St. Paul” is a revolutionary response to Protestantism and aligns James and Paul. It is a great scholarly development for Catholics (and even better for LDS).

Charity, TOm

 

[zerinus]

tom, the Op has been questioning zerinius about how he can know that the bom is true. zerines says that he needs no intellectual activity but that the Holy Ghost witnesses directly to him in such a way that there can be no mistaking that it is the HG witnessing, and that what the HG witnessess about the bom is true.

you seem to be saying that you arrived at the conviction tha the bom is true by means of thinking about it. Do i understand you to be saying that you disagree with zerrineus in this matter? if so, how would you characterize your disagreement, or if I have misunderstood you, in what way have i done so?

The LDS Church is a broad Church. It contains people of diverse personalities and dispositions; and as I have stated to Socrates, the Holy Ghost witness to people the truth of the Book of Mormon in an infinite variety of ways. To some it is witnessed to the heart; to some to the mind or the intellect—and even visions and ministration of angels have not been unknown. That is why I was not willing to describe to Socrates exactly how the Holy Ghost will witness to someone that the Book of Mormon is true.

zerinus

 

[talter]

Tom i have seen you comment on Jonah twice and would like to note that you appear to be ignoring the fact that Nineveh repented enmasse which is the cause of God relenting the destruction of the place. God had told Jonah in no uncertain terms that he intended to destry Nineveh, but relented when the entire population at the urging of their leaders donned sackcloth and ashes and repented of the sins that caused God to be angry. According to my own learnings on this book, the story is about Jonah and his attitude rather than about a prophecy of Nineveh, which may be mythological along the lines of Job, though I accept it as fact.

Man I hate being a slow typer. Getting interrupted a few times doesn’t help. Now my post looks like I’m just piling on. I hate that… at least I quoted scripture that supports our assertion so it’s not as complete copy of what you said.

 

[J_C]

That is the whole point. The (apparently) failed prophecy of Jonah finds its exact parallel with the (supposedly) failed prophecy of Joseph Smith, which apostates and anti-Mormons like to bring up. Either Jonah’s prophecy failed, or Joseph Smith’s didn’t, because they are exact parallels. To maintain a different position is nothing short of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and double standards.

zerinus

but the prophesy of Jonah did not fail. God relented because the population of nineveh repented fervently. That is different from saying Jonah prophesied according to a word from God, and then the prophesy failed to come true. Jonah treied to escape from this prophetic mission, yet God pulled him back thru the belly of a fish, so god was determined the message be delivered. If God didn’t envision the chance for Nineveh to repent and save themselves then he wouldn’t have bothered with a prophet, but rather would have just blown the place up. Again this story is not really about a prophesy but about the hard heart of Jonah.

How does Jonah story compare directly with any prophesy of J Smith? I donnot know very much about smiths’ prophesies. Can you example of similar prophesies of J Smith that failed for reasons similar to Jonah? thank you

 

[zerinus]

but the prophesy of Jonah did not fail . . .

I did not say that it failed. If you can’t understand plain English, then we have nothing further to say to each other.

zerinus

 

[J_C]

The LDS Church is a broad Church. It contains people of diverse personalities and dispositions; and as I have stated to Socrates, the Holy Ghost witness to people the truth of the Book of Mormon in an infinite variety of ways. To some it is witnessed to the heart; to some to the mind or the intellect—and even visions and ministration of angels have not been unknown. That is why I was not willing to describe to Socrates exactly how the Holy Ghost will witness to someone that the Book of Mormon is true.

zerinus

i see, thank you. I understand the missionaries tell prospects to read the bom, pray, and ask for an internal feeling that the bom is true. if a person read and was convinced that from what he knew about the world and the Bible the bom could not possible be true, but then prayed and got a confirming feeling that it is true, then he should disregard the intellectual process and go forward to morman baptism based on the feeling alone?

 

[NewSeeker]

Can you offer the LDS response to your claims?

I don’t know that there’s an official response to this (I’ve never seen on in my years in the church), but I have heard LDS members state that prophets are fallible and can offer opinions, thinking they’re doctrinal - which is why church members are encouraged to pray and seek confirmation that a prophet’s doctrinal statements are true. Joseph Smith himself acknowledged the possibility of error when, in response to one of his own failed prophesies, he said “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil.” (from David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887).

 

[J_C]

I did not say that it failed. If you can’t understand plain English, then we have nothing further to say to each other.

zerinus

you are correct madam i did not carefully note your parenthetical qualification. I have a readig disability and am blind enough that i probably shoudln’t be playing with the big dogs.

still I would be interested in specific examples of Smith prophesies that fit the same pattern as that of Jonah, if you would be so kind as to refer me to those, thank you.

 

[ralphinal]

In my little mind, I can think of three cons.

First, teachings are being disproven by science. FOr example, DNA evidence shows no Isrealite ancestory in Native Americans.

Second, the ban on alcohol and caffine.

Thrid, at one time, they taught that men can marry more than one woman. Ask any married man away from his wife, where he can speak without fear of retribution. THat is a bad, bad idea. ONe is enough.

 

[TOmNossor]

tom, the Op has been questioning zerinius about how he can know that the bom is true. zerines says that he needs no intellectual activity but that the Holy Ghost witnesses directly to him in such a way that there can be no mistaking that it is the HG witnessing, and that what the HG witnessess about the bom is true.

you seem to be saying that you arrived at the conviction tha the bom is true by means of thinking about it. Do i understand you to be saying that you disagree with zerrineus in this matter? if so, how would you characterize your disagreement, or if I have misunderstood you, in what way have i done so?

I said that I became a member of the CoJCoLDS without a spiritual testimony based on intellectual conclusions concerning the BOM and the coming forth of the church.
I believe that Z is correct in what he is saying and I applaud those who walk this path.
I believe that those who want to look should pray. I believe that those who want to offer Pro and Con’s need to see what is available.
I am far more intellectual than my wife. She is a better person than I am, but I have recognized that I think like I do.
When I needed a testimony (while confronting “the devil did it theory”) I received it.

If the devil is as powerful as some claim him to be then the evidence that the CoJCoLDS is divine may be fabricated to keep me out of the Catholic Church. To confront this argument things like sincere prayer and “by their fruits” and … must be examined. Things like Nahom being found matter little because the devil was alive in 600BC and could have made it up.

But, since I cannot share my communication with God with you, I generally stick to the intellectual strength of the CoJCoLDS (in general and relative to Protestantism and Catholicism).

I also believe that CA attempts to paint the CoJCoLDS as so ridiculous that nobody should pray about it. This may be a good tactic, but it evidence a lack of faith in God in many ways. I respond to this tactic.

Finally I like this:
Austin Farrer in Light on C.S. Lewis

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

Charity, TOm

 

[ralphinal]

you are correct madam i did not carefully note your parenthetical qualification. I have a readig disability and am blind enough that i probably shoudln’t be playing with the big dogs.

PLay away. Enjoy learning about the faiths of others. You can always read and not post, but you may be able to teach where others have failed

 

[zerinus]

i see, thank you. I understand the missionaries tell prospects to read the bom, pray, and ask for an internal feeling that the bom is true. if a person read and was convinced that from what he knew about the world and the Bible the bom could not possible be true, but then prayed and got a confirming feeling that it is true, then he should disregard the intellectual process and go forward to morman baptism based on the feeling alone?

Your post is based on a false assumption. The false assumption is that someone reading the Book of Mormon would be “convinced that from what he knew about the world and the Bible the bom could not possible be true”. That is a false assumption which is not true. But I suppose that if you cannot understand plain English, that does not come as a surprise.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Your post is based on a false assumption. The false assumption is that someone reading the Book of Mormon would be “convinced that from what he knew about the world and the Bible the bom could not possible be true”. That is a false assumption which is not true. But I suppose that if you cannot understand plain English, that does not come as a surprise.

zerinus

Z,
Please be nice. This poster has not shown themselves to be a jerk.

 

[zerinus]

you are correct madam i did not carefully note your parenthetical qualification. I have a readig disability and am blind enough that i probably shoudln’t be playing with the big dogs.

I am not a ma’m, I am a dude!

still I would be interested in specific examples of Smith prophesies that fit the same pattern as that of Jonah, if you would be so kind as to refer me to those, thank you.

Now that is a more sensible question that I will answer for you after I have grabbed something to eat.

zerinus