Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[J_C]

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.

I think i understans what you mean by the devil did it theory, and I don’t buy that either. man is fully capable of profound evil left all to his own devices without need of spiritual help in that realm. and of course Satan is nowhere near as powerful as he is often made out to be by people needing some other on which to blame their failures.

I am also prone to give more weight to thinking than to feelings. That is why I am Catholic. I never trust my feelings including feelings I get during after and between prayer. God seems to confirm himself to me through my senses than thru my intuitive processes. In 30 years of being Christian I have come up with some real zingers of “God is leading me here or there” that turned out to be nothing more than delerious manifestations of my own sinful desires.

thank you for that clarification, I am in process of learning about your religion.

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

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.
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.

Not to offend, but I doubt this very seriously for a few reasons.
First on infallibility. You did in fact not parse it correctly “concerning faith and morals” is radically insufficient in that it is demonstratably false. I doubt you know Newman’s view on Vatican I as this debate raged. I doubt you know that arguably the foremost Catholic historian of the day left the Catholic Church because he couldn’t believe this doctrine.
Also, will you address my question on JPII statement?

On Joseph Smith’s libido.
You are definitely misinformed. The historical record virtually demands that many (even most) of Joseph’s plural marriages were not consummated. The historical record does not demand that even one was consummated. The historical record also suggest that even though some were likely consummated there was not much opportunity to exercise libido as Joseph did not consummate his non-Emma marriages regularly.

RebeccaJ:

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

By “introduced” I meant such that you stood in His presence and communed with Him. This did not happen for you in Mormonism, but it did for me and for many others.

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.

My story was about the beam in my eye not about the girls. Sorry if that was not clear.

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.

A few things here.
First, this is a problem. I am working on it.
Second, orthodoxy is a problem when it results in the wars and schisms present in the 4th-… century. A balance must be struck.

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 am sorry.
Do you realize that former Catholics say the exact same thing about Catholicism and works based righteousness?

Charity, TOm

 

[J_C]

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

forgive my false assumption. i understand that you are a literalist who believes that every iota of the bom is factual. i am referring to one who, being educated along the lines that the nativ american peoples descended from those who migrated across a land bridge at the bearing strait approx 13000 years ago and that accumulating dna research supports this conclusion, would, reading the bom and unable to reconcile his education with that variant statement therein need to disregard that information in favor of a feeling gotten from a spiritual source.

Again forgive my naive thinking, i am in a learning situation heer and my reading and writing are not up to your high standard. I take no offense at your stridentcy.

 

[J_C]

I am not a ma’m, I am a dude!

I am sorry, sir. your profile did not specify, and your writing hs a feminine ring to it, not sure why, my bad intuition I guess.

thank you.

[/QUOTE]

 

[NewSeeker]

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.

That is so interesting TOm. I’m leaving Mormonism (and entering the Catholic Church next month) based on “on intellectual conclusions concerning the BOM and the coming forth of the church.” That’s not the sole reason, of course. There’s also the intellectual conclusions concerning the Bible and the coming forth of the Catholic Church.

Regarding the BOM, it’s easily explained in my mind by the idea of an extremely imaginative young man with a fertile and creative mind, and deep knowledge of the King James Bible and its idioms, dictating a well-practiced story to scribes. Sure he couldn’t write or spell very well (as his early handwritten diary attests). But that wasn’t his role. With his copy of the KJV in hand, he just spun a tall tale drenched in imagery right out of the bible (along with many chapters of biblical text lifted directly from his copy of the KJV). There’s plenty of evidence to support this theory, just as there is evidence to support Joseph’s claims to have received gold plates. Neither are conclusive in an absolute sense; I find my view more conclusive in a “weight of the evidence” sense, particularly if other things are taken into account (e.g. the Book of Abraham is obviously pseudoepigraphical, if not an outright knowing forgery).

My study of church history, BoM and BoA origins, the Early Church Fathers, and the New Testament have led me to Catholicism. When I read the ECFs, I see liturgy, altars, the beginnings of a hierarchical structure, and the Real Presence. But unlike you, I do not see Apostasy, especially since 1) all of those “catholic” things the earliest ECFs wrote about are easily detectable in the NT (particularly 1Cor, Rom, Hebrews, and Revelation) and 2) the earliest of those Fathers that you mentioned in a previous post (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp) were all disciples of, and likely ordained as bishops by, the Apostles themselves (Peter and Paul in the case of Clement, John in the case of Ignatius and Polycarp). Hence my own intellectually-derived religious convictions.

NS

 

[zerinus]

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

Thank you Ralph. Sorry if I was wrong; but I had thought that he was!

zerinus

 

[TOmNossor]

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

I mean that the Biblical, Historical, and Philosophical position of the CoJCoLDS is stronger than that for the Catholic Church IMO.
I have a brilliant Catholic friend who knows more about Mormonism than I do who sees this differently (though he places less weight on the philosophic problems than I do IMO).

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
This is all good and well, but Jonah the prophet of God didn’t say to Nineveh you are done if you do not repent. If God “changed his mind” he left his prophet high and dry. This is what the Bible teaches.

BTW, as a LDS I allow for a certain sense in which God can “change His mind,” but I would not even say that as you did. You as a Catholic CANNOT say God can “change His mind” even thought this is the most clear read of the Bible numerous places.

I think your example is a false dichotomy. I who am uncomfortable saying that God just “changed His mind” recognize that God is great enough to have multiple reasons for future events that he generally foresees (without “changing His mind.”).

talter:
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.
I think I understand development well. I question if Newman’s Theory of Development was something that changed the church in a way inconsistent with his Theory of Development, but I have never pursued this argument to form a firm conclusion.

To be Catholic is to recognize development without supernatural public revelation. To be a LDS is to recognize development and supernatural public revelation. The question is who has the authority Christ gave to Peter, but there is no question that Peter would experience differences if he was plugged into either the modern Catholic Church or the modern LDS church.

Charity, TOm

 

[J_C]

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.

not at all. I have belonged to 3 parishes owing to moving from state to state. All three have had very active outreach at the parish level to needy regardless of religion, from funds collected directly from parishoeners. Our St. Vincent de Paul Society gives money and food aid directly. this past Dec our parish paid rent and gave food to 27 local families. of course there is also Catholic Charities which is supported by parish donations, but to say that a typcial Catholic parish is generally not equipped to provide assistance is very incorrect in my experience,

 

[ralphinal]

Thank you Ralph. Sorry if I was wrong; but I had thought that he was!

zerinus

As a rule, I don’t get into the blood fueds that you and some other posters have. Sometimes, I don’t blame you for being frustraited, if not infuriated, at them. This time, the posted mentioned that he has a reading problem and vision issues. I just didn’t want your testimony unfairly viewed by harsh remarks.

 

[RAR]

Thank you, Like. I know you do not believe Mormonism is Christian. If you will not tell me why it is not for fear of offending thoughtful Mormons, perhaps someone else will?

I personally do not find it offensive when someone disagrees with me, unless the person falsely slanders my character without good cause. However, you may send me a private message with your honest opinions, if you like.



http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_th...7/2/istockphoto_1845847_check_list_on_pad.jpg

Pros and Cons of Mormonism:

Pros

1. 
   *]There is a strong social support system among active members of the Latter Day Saints Church.
   *]The LDS wards do a better job at creating a sense of belonging than some other religious groups.
   Cons
   1. 
      *]Mormonism is not really a Christian religion.

1. 1. 
      Hey, Socrates, please see posts #20 & 21. But ignore the part about divorce… I’m happily mistaken.
      
      RAR

 

[TOmNossor]

All,
I skipped lots of stuff to come to this post. If I missed something vital point it out to me please.

That is so interesting TOm. I’m leaving Mormonism (and entering the Catholic Church next month) based on “on intellectual conclusions concerning the BOM and the coming forth of the church.” That’s not the sole reason, of course. There’s also the intellectual conclusions concerning the Bible and the coming forth of the Catholic Church.

I once left Catholic Answers (I have left many times) because someone who left Mormonism was attacking it with reasons that I would normally respond to by saying that if that is so problematic then Catholicism is false.
I know that God lives. I know that He loves.
Too many LDS believe that if they thought God told them to be a LDS and that was wrong that God is not real.
It is more important to be seeking a relationship with God than to be in His true church.
I am glad you have found Catholicism. It has been my second choice of religion for almost 10 years now.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Regarding the BOM, it’s easily explained in my mind by the idea of an extremely imaginative young man with a fertile and creative mind, and deep knowledge of the King James Bible and its idioms, dictating a well-practiced story to scribes. Sure he couldn’t write or spell very well (as his early handwritten diary attests). But that wasn’t his role. With his copy of the KJV in hand, he just spun a tall tale drenched in imagery right out of the bible (along with many chapters of biblical text lifted directly from his copy of the KJV). There’s plenty of evidence to support this theory, just as there is evidence to support Joseph’s claims to have received gold plates. Neither are conclusive in an absolute sense; I find my view more conclusive in a “weight of the evidence” sense, particularly if other things are taken into account (e.g. the Book of Abraham is obviously pseudoepigraphical, if not an outright knowing forgery).

I am quite far from your view.
I would suggest that the numerous BOM production theories are evidence that things are not near so simple. The first theories all spoke of Joseph Smith as his neighbors knew him, a simple fellow with little chance of producing something like the BOM. Rigdon/Spaulding theories, and … Later Joseph Smith became a religion genius of unheard of talent. Most recently he is a genius with a scared family history and ….
I find all such theories flawed, but there is another avenue that I think has born fruit and continues to do so.

I think Lehi’s journey has been defined including Jerusalem, Nahom, and Bountiful. Nahom and this journey are quite remarkable and have prompted critics to invent even more BOM production theories.
I think John Clark’s archeological argument about Mesoamerica are strong.
I think Brant Gardner’s arguments are strong.
I think some of the work on names, and Chiasmus are interesting.

I would believe the devil did it were I to be a Catholic.

The BOA is a mess however.

1. all of those “catholic” things the earliest ECFs wrote about are easily detectable in the NT (particularly 1Cor, Rom, Hebrews, and Revelation) and 2) the earliest of those Fathers that you mentioned in a previous post (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp) were all disciples of, and likely ordained as bishops by, the Apostles themselves (Peter and Paul in the case of Clement, John in the case of Ignatius and Polycarp). Hence my own intellectually-derived religious convictions.

A single person who leads a local church as Bishop is something that developed at different times in different places.

Father Sullivan acknowledges that:
Ignatius was one, Clement was an important presbyter in a group of presbyters. In fact Rome was still lead by a group of presbyters in the middle of the 2nd century.
(Where I Catholic this is what I would believe).

As a LDS I believe:
Ignatius was a Bishop in a group of presbyters and Clement was a Bishop in a group of presbyters. The single person did not lead until he died, but served until released and then others replace him. This is why we really cannot determine the order of Linus, Anticletus, and Clement. They all lived together and interchanged the role of Bishop.

All this has little to do with huge problem of passing Peter’s authority on to Linus or anyone else. Why that authority took century to grow into something resembling what it is today. And why what it grew into is different than what Peter possessed as an apostle.

There are answers to all of the above questions BTW. Father Sullivan and Robert Eno are Catholics (I mentioned their books earlier in this post). I just find the LDS answers stronger.

Charity, TOm

BTW, Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch was likely ordained by Peter who was involved in the foundation of the Antioch Church before the Roman Chruch.

 

[TOmNossor]

not at all. I have belonged to 3 parishes owing to moving from state to state. All three have had very active outreach at the parish level to needy regardless of religion, from funds collected directly from parishoeners. Our St. Vincent de Paul Society gives money and food aid directly. this past Dec our parish paid rent and gave food to 27 local families. of course there is also Catholic Charities which is supported by parish donations, but to say that a typcial Catholic parish is generally not equipped to provide assistance is very incorrect in my experience,

I stand corrected. I do live near a very poor diocese (the poorest in the country is nearby but mine is probably moderate) but surely some of my problem was just ignorance. Thanks.
Charity, TOm

 

[fatima1917]

Here is a con:

Mountain Meadows Massacre: September 11, 1857

 

[zerinus]

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.

Okay, back at the desk! The most frequently cited supposed “failed prophecy” of Joseph Smith is the following:

D&C 84:

1 A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high.

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.

3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.

4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

Firstly, it is a mistake to call this a prophecy. It is more of a commandment than a prophecy. “Thou shalt not kill” is a commandment not to kill, not a prophecy that you won’t kill. Secondly, even if you want to consider it as a prophecy, it a prophecy that is contingent on the righteousness and worthiness of the Saints to whom it was given—just as the prophecy of Jonah to Nineveh was contingent on their rebellion or repentance. As it happens, the Saints at that time (or many of them) were unworthy, and were not as righteous as they should be to receive this blessing, therefore the Lord permitted their enemies to drive them out of their land, thus preventing them from fulfilling that commandment:

D&C 105:

1 Verily I say unto you who have assembled yourselves together that you may learn my will concerning the redemption of mine afflicted people—

2 Behold, I say unto you, were it not for the transgressions of my people, speaking concerning the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now.

3 But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them;

4 And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom;

5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.

6 And my people must needs be chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by the things which they suffer.

This is the first 6 verses of the revelation. The whole of this revelation explains why they were not able to build the temple and Zion at that time—because of their transgressions. But it also contains the promise that at some future day they will be able to build it.

The case is an exact parallel with that of Jonahs’—the only difference being that in the case of Jonah the prophecy was changed because the repented; and in the case of the Latter-day Saints it changed because they did not repent.

The following revelation also clarifies the situation further:

D&C 124:

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.

As it is perfectly clear from these revelations, It was a commandment, not a prophecy; and the commandment could not be carried out because of the unworthiness of some Church members at that time. The Lord permitted their enemies to prevent them from carrying it our at that time for that reason.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Pro: Mormons emphasize strong, close, loving family ties.

Con: There is absolutely zero linguistic, archaeological or historical support for anything claimed in the Book of Mormon or the rest of the LDS church’s supporting documents.

Thank you ibkc!

Pros and Cons of Mormonism:

Pros

1. 
   *]There is a strong social support system among active members of the Latter Day Saints Church.
   *]The LDS wards do a better job at creating a sense of belonging than some other religious groups.
   *]Mormons emphasize strong, close, loving family ties.
   Cons
   1. 
      *]Mormonism is not really a Christian religion.
      *]Mormons think they can become gods.
      *]There is absolutely zero linguistic, archaeological or historical support for anything claimed in the Book of Mormon and other LDS documents.
      

 

[zerinus]

forgive my false assumption. i understand that you are a literalist who believes that every iota of the bom is factual.

That is true, I am.

i am referring to one who, being educated along the lines that the nativ american peoples descended from those who migrated across a land bridge at the bearing strait approx 13000 years ago and that accumulating dna research supports this conclusion, would, reading the bom and unable to reconcile his education with that variant statement therein need to disregard that information in favor of a feeling gotten from a spiritual source.

That is a theory. It is not a scientifically proven fact—even though you may think that it is. Some people think that Evolution is scientifically proven fact. Others of us disagree. You get my point.

Again forgive my naive thinking, i am in a learning situation heer and my reading and writing are not up to your high standard. I take no offense at your stridentcy.

Thank you for your kindness. My apologies if I caused any offence.

zerinus

 

[TOmNossor]

While they oppose most abortions, Mormons don’t believe in the sanctity of life of the unborn.

I consider this a con as I believe human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

Your postion Good Daughter is likely the DEVELOPED Catholic position. I agree life is sacred from the moment of conception, but when does ensoulment occur?

I really should leave, but since I can mostly just link to a previous discussion let me do this.

1. LDS are opposed to all abortions and do a better job than Catholics at not having abortions. Life is sacred from the moment of conception, but ensoulment may or may not have occured.
2. The best read of the LDS position is quite similar to the ancient Catholic position as opposed to the developed Catholic position.
3. The reason of the LDS position is a huge emphasis upon agency and trusting God. This combined with no revelation on ensoulment. It is interesting that in the absence of revelation the prevailing Catholic view on ensoulment has changed over time.
4. I have also spoken with LDS social services and know zero abortions and a handful of babies born to rape victims. If ensoulement has occurred abortion cannot happen and will not be performed according to LDS doctrine as I read it.
5. I personally am opposed to all abortion and would only approve of the abortions approved by the Catholic Church.
6. I believe the bioethics view espoused in the Catholic Church concerning ectopic pregnancies is excessively legalistic and in interest of providing a safer procedure (less likely to kill the mother and less likely to prevent future children) I would advocate chemical or physical action on the fetus rather than cutting out a section of the felopian tube and killing the fetus 100% of the time too.

For discussion of the above 6 points see this thread:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=30457

If you want to ask about 1-6 please quote the relevant section from the thread I linked.
Charity, TOm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The Great Apostasy is a pro of LDS.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates - I was raised LDS (fourth generation on both sides). I must agree with all of the pros you have listed. The mormon community is extremely close-knit and supportive. Another pro is that the LDS welfare system to help those in need is without peer.

On the con side, I would add that the sense of belongingness in that wonderful community requires that you seek and acquire your own “testimony” of the truth of the BoM and Joseph Smith’s prophetic role. It’s the exact same internal witness from the Holy Spirit that Zerinus has been speaking about in your conversations with him/her. If you participate in the community while you are seeking, or become a mormon after receiving that witness, you will be fine and will be able to enjoy the benefits of what is truly the best social support network I’ve ever experienced. But beware - enjoyment of all that the community has to offer you socially and spiritually is contingent on you receiving a spiritual witness that the Church is true. If you honestly and sincerely seek that testimony and do not in the end receive it and make that known you will find that former friends will begin treating you differently. You will be “advised” by concerned friends and ecclesiastical leaders that perhaps you really weren’t sincere in your search after all, or you lacked faith, or you weren’t listening to the whisperings of the spirit, or you didn’t really want a testimony since it would require you to change some personal habits, or even that you have some unresolved sin that is interfering with the Spirit. Your lack of a spiritual witness won’t be attributed to God or to the possibility that perhaps mormonism isn’t for you. You will be personally blamed for the lack of a witness. I speak from experience here as a lifetime member of the church who now finds himself in exactly that situation. Each and every one of those “explanations” of the lack of a witness have been cited by bishops, friends, parents, and extended family members. The same will happen to you if you join the mormon community and do not in the end receive that witness.

NS

That is good to know and much appreciated, NewSeeker. It sounds a little like the Word-of-Faith movement spreading like cancer throughout some Evangelical churches. People are told that if they have cancer they should not seek medical help but believe God will heal them. If they are not miraculously healed of cancer, they are told that they are to blame, either because their faith was not strong enough or they harbored some secret sin.
It is sad and destructive.

Pros and Cons of Mormonism:

Pros

1. 
   *]There is a strong social support system among active members of the Latter Day Saints Church.
   *]The LDS wards do a better job at creating a sense of belonging than some other religious groups.
   *]Mormons emphasize strong, close, loving family ties.
   *]The LDS welfare system to help those in need is without peer.
   Cons
   1. 
      *]Mormonism is not really a Christian religion.
      *]Mormons think they can become gods.
      *]There is absolutely zero linguistic, archaeological or historical support for anything claimed in the Book of Mormon and other LDS documents.
      *]Enjoyment of all that the community has to offer you socially and spiritually is contingent on you receiving a spiritual witness that the Church is true.
      http://www.web-abstracts.com/portal/Portals/0/checkmark.gif