Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[why_me]

Thank you for being open about your experience, WhyMe.

[/INDENT]I genuinely want to understand this experience you had in receiving a witness from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true and that you should join the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Can you describe what this experience was like?

Difficult to describe. I can say that it was overpowering. I was in my room praying about the book when suddenly I was overcome by a tremendous feeling deep within me. I have never forgotten it and it has kept me at the outer edges of mormonism for over 30 years. I will never deny that feeling. Nor will I ever claim it to be a ‘warm fuzzy’.

At that time, I considered it to be truth manifesting to me. And I also remember my lds baptism very well. It was also a tremendous feeling of the holy ghost’s pressence. And I can not deny that truth either.

To deny the holy ghost is a terrible sin in the lds faith and I will never hopefully commit that sin even if I were to commit myself totally to the catholic faith.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, you are swimming in de-nile, not the “filthy waters” of the Mississippi. I was raised in Hancock County Illinois, into a family with roots before 1837 in the area. Capiche???

Given LDS ability to research the geneaology of most people in this country, I do believe you cannot deny where the problem is.

I have forgiveness, my family has forgiveness. LDS do not. It is the LDS present that is the problem. Because I am living in an area of the country which has very few LDS people, I am now reasonably safe from the problem.

So, now you think that the LDS you lived among researched your genealogy and knew about you. But, you said that as you lived among them you didn’t know what you now know to be true (they were “not tolerant of [your] beliefs and cultural heritage, and, in fact, some are offended by [your] very existence."). How could this be?

And if your message is that in the present my co-religionists and I are “not tolerant of [your] beliefs and cultural heritage, and, in fact, some are offended by [your] very existence" then, I am in a state of denial. This is so foreign to my experience of my co-religionists AND I am the world authority on my personal views of your “cultural heritage” and “very existence.”

If you cannot tell, I do however believe the evidence is readily available that you have a disdain for my religion and an untrue view of me personally (and almost certainly my co-religionist). By my view this is pure prejudice against me and numerous LDS who do not deserve you disdain. I say this not because I speak generally of a group, but because of my specific observations of you.

I hope you can reconsider. That said, I learned long ago that being offended when others treat me in a way that I consider unjust only adds to my problems. So, I choose not to be offended; I just think you will be better served by a different outlook.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm, would you agree then that, if “God the Father did what God the Son was then doing,” God the Father once declared the living reality of his own Eternal Father and prayed to Him, just as Jesus prayed to his own (and our) Heavenly Father? It seems to follow logically from your premise and your interpretation of John 5:19. If so, I can’t see how you can escape the conclusion that there is an infinite regress of gods after all.

NS
No, I would not. As I mentioned here, there must be some limit to how far you take any statement like John 5:19.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3308870&postcount=252
Was God the Father incarnate via a birth to a Virgin named Mary who was betrothed to a man named Joseph? No.
Again, Joseph Smith is explaining the nature of God the Father. Among the most remarkable truths Joseph restored was the embodiment of God the Father (there are some great Harvard Theological Review articles on just how prevalent this view was in the Early Church). Joseph used John 5:19 to explain how God the Father came to be embodied which is the same way God the Son came to be embodied.

Also, D&C 93 and the Book of Abraham point us solidly away from the belief that there is a God above God. Add in the Council of gods motif within the Bible, and it is obvious IMO that God the Father is at the head of all.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stuff I want to get to:

Thank you for your boldness TOm.

I have seen nothing in your posts to support this though. Now, forgive me, because I haven’t been around as long as others on this board and have not seen the full history of your posts on the subject. That being said, in the posts I have seen there is nothing to convince me other than that what the ECFs were speaking about was a striving for perfection in our mortal lives.

With that in mind, it seems to me the communion with the Trinity as spoken of is not a participation in God-ness with that Trinity, but more a “communal living.” In other words, we’re in the presence of God… we are not deified. The reason “No pre-fourth century ECF ever spoke of a limit upon the FINAL state of deified man” is because no such deification exists.

Here is my “bold” statement… **Man is a creatURE and as such can not leap the chasm of being-ness to become creatOR. **

What we’re talking about is putting ourselves on par with God… this is the original sin! This is heresy. That is why Jesus established His church… so that we can put our trust in it, and by proxy, Him alone.

God bless as always.

RAR

Are you saying that God the Father was a man, but not like you and me, because you and me, unlike Him, have a beginning and He never did?

majick275:

i’m gonna disagree with you on joseph fielding smith based on his doctrines of salvation an answers to gospel questions books. Hinkley was in my opinion dissembling in his public statements on this. I will also that I think your position on deification closer to the catholic than the mormon. Mormon teaching currently and all along has emphasized that we will (if exalted) have spirit children and that we will have the same relationship to them that our god has to us. JS was very clear on this point too that we would gain our kingdom and thus glorify our father and our children in turn will do the same. this requires the principle to go in both directions infinitely and also begs the question as to who the savior is for each of these “generations”. I understand you not going into the temple implications of this but I believe they support my case strongly

Perhaps later.
Charity, TOm

 

[truthsilence]

Difficult to describe. I can say that it was overpowering. I was in my room praying about the book when suddenly I was overcome by a tremendous feeling deep within me. I have never forgotten it and it has kept me at the outer edges of mormonism for over 30 years. I will never deny that feeling. Nor will I ever claim it to be a ‘warm fuzzy’.

At that time, I considered it to be truth manifesting to me. And I also remember my lds baptism very well. It was also a tremendous feeling of the holy ghost’s pressence. And I can not deny that truth either.

To deny the holy ghost is a terrible sin in the lds faith and I will never hopefully commit that sin even if I were to commit myself totally to the catholic faith.

whyme,

If you care to answer, did you ask God in the name of Christ to provide His protection for you from being deceived by the adversary prior to your prayer? I ask because I sincerely believe this is the reason I never received such a feeling, or any feeling at all. And I was not on the outside edges at all. I was doing everything asked of me by the LDS church. I asked God to protect me. I didn’t receive a testimony but I stayed active in the LDS church anyway, for 15 more years. And when I was ready, God led me home to the Catholic church which was the very last thing I would have ever dreamed of.

God bless.

 

[steve_b]

Thank you, Steve, but we have not heard from a Mormon, yet, as to which of these reasons is the best, most worthy, reason to become a Mormon. Rather than discuss every one of them, i’d like to wait for a thoughtful, faithful, Latter Day Saint to choose one and see why he believes that reason is not only the most worthy but also true.

:52. Mormonism is human, rather than Divine, in origin. That is, it is a man-made religion.

point #52, IMHO ought to be #1. It’s a showstopper.

 

[NewSeeker]

If you care to answer, did you ask God in the name of Christ to provide His protection for you from being deceived by the adversary prior to your prayer? I ask because I sincerely believe this is the reason I never received such a feeling, or any feeling at all. And I was not on the outside edges at all. I was doing everything asked of me by the LDS church. I asked God to protect me. I didn’t receive a testimony but I stayed active in the LDS church anyway, for 15 more years. And when I was ready, God led me home to the Catholic church which was the very last thing I would have ever dreamed of.

This is the exact same experience I had. I didn’t receive a testimony when I sincerely asked for one and went on a mission and married my wife in the temple anyway, all the while continuing to pray for a testimony. I eventually gave up on God for many years and when I finally turned to him again I was led gently but firmly to the Catholic Church, though I fought it tooth and nail. For me too it was the last thing I ever expected or would have ever dreamed of in a million years.

NS

 

[Cathlacostal]

Pros

1, You can wear an under garment with masonic symbols on it to protect you from Christians.

2, The under garment may keep you warm in the winter

3, You can have a Masonic Temple in Salt Lake City and claim it’s a Mormon temple.

Cons

1, The occultic under garment doesn’t work.

2, You are not allowed to discuss the under garment with non-Mormons due to an oath you have to take.

3, If anyone knew the symbols were Masonic and also knew Joseph Smith was a Free Mason, they would get the link.

4, Mormonism is a form of Freemasonry

5, Freemasonry is Satanism.

6, Many will say “Lord Lord didn’t we … in your name”

Man, you crack me up my friend. AMEN
Randy

 

[NewSeeker]

No, I would not. As I mentioned here, there must be some limit to how far you take any statement like John 5:19.

Ok, fair enough, though I’m not convinced by the grounds on which you base your view (I don’t accept the D&C and BoA as valid). I do wonder, however, how you (or any mormon for that matter) can so easily dismiss a prophet’s words when that prophet proclaims something to be doctrinal over the pulpit in conference using words that leave no doubt as to his belief that he is proclaiming doctrine. It’s even more amazing to me when LDS prophets have declared the same doctrine again and again consistently across time to be doctrinal. How then can a modern prophet declare such a doctrine to be speculative in nature? How can church members dismiss the doctrine as “opinion” or a “humdinger”? This makes absolutely no sense to me at all. In another thread, I presented a framework for interpreting the meaning of such erroneous doctrinal statements. I only see three possibilities when a prophet, such as BY, is deemed to have been mistaken about some doctrine by a later prophet (such as GBH):

1. the prophet speculated and mistook it for doctrine
2. the prophet knowingly speculated and called it doctrine anyway
3. the prophet pronounced true doctrine, but his successor calls it speculation

If #1, then the prophet is incompetent. If #2, the prophet is a liar. If #3, the prophet’s successor is in apostasy.

#1-#2 mean that the prophet cannot be trusted ever. He loses all credibility as a prophet since prophets can’t claim to be speaking God’s words when they’re not really God’s words and remain a prophet. #3 means the prophet’s successor can’t ever be trusted, for similar reasons.

Given the fact that they contradict each other doctrinally, BY and GBH cannot BOTH have been prophets. One of them must have been uttering false doctrine and that by definition makes him a false prophet.

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

I need to add one more point. When presented with the strange doctrinal ramblings of BY found in the Journal of Discourses, church members typically respond by saying that past prophets spoke to those times and “thank God we have a modern prophet who speaks to us today.” This is relativism at its best, which is fascinating to me since the CoJCoLDS claims to teach eternal truths. Either God had a heavenly father or he did not. He didn’t have a heavenly father in the 19th Century and suddenly become uncreated in the 20th Century. The nature of God is an eternal, immutable truth - the same as God is. So how could some LDS prophets 1) be mistaken about the nature of God (they talk to Him face to face after all!!!) and 2) contradict each other doctrinally? It’s not surprising in the end that mormons have all become doctrinal relativists. That’s the only way to defend the legitimacy of past prophets.

NS

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Indeed it is, but I’d respond to the Petros/petra argument that Christ was using “petra” deliberately to both distinguish it from the name (Petros) and to at the same time make it clear that he was speaking of Petros in his use of “petra.” Otherwise, to make it clear that he did NOT mean Peter, he would have been much more careful in his word use.

Example… my brother’s name is Rocky (we often call him Rock). Imagine if my father would have said the following immediately after my brother’s birth:

“You are Rock, and upon this stone I will build my family.”

Now, he could have meant himself (my father) in that because of my father, my brother will now be able to bring forth a family, but he clearly also means that because of Rocky a family will be brought forth.

I believe that because of the reference to the stone and the play on words with Rocky, that my father would be speaking principally of my brother that would provide the means to bring forth the family.

I hope this wasn’t too circular… I’m leaving for work.

God bless.

RAR

Well, RAR, to your father i might ask, “Which is he, a rock or a stone? For certainly a small pebble on the landscape of a yard is not the same as the bedrock on which a home stands!”

However, i’m interested in exploring this idea about Peter further, if you do not mind answering this question: Why did Peter chop of the ear of a man?

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

(John 18:10-11)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Pros

1, You can wear an under garment with masonic symbols on it to protect you from Christians.

2, The under garment may keep you warm in the winter

3, You can have a Masonic Temple in Salt Lake City and claim it’s a Mormon temple.

Cons

1, The occultic under garment doesn’t work.

2, You are not allowed to discuss the under garment with non-Mormons due to an oath you have to take.

3, If anyone knew the symbols were Masonic and also knew Joseph Smith was a Free Mason, they would get the link.

4, Mormonism is a form of Freemasonry

5, Freemasonry is Satanism.

6, Many will say “Lord Lord didn’t we … in your name”

Thank you, East. Yes, i believe there was some discussion about some holy underwear or something when we added the con to the list about the LDS church requiring a certain dress code. However, what i’d really like to know is which of the reasons for not becoming a Mormon do you find the most worthy?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quickly,
But Jesus was speaking Aramaic not Greek. This is a Protestant argument. LDS have had little problem with Peter as the Rock. We are the Peterine successors. The break in the link is between Peter and the BIshop of Rome.
Thanks, TOm

Thank you, TOm. Two questions, please:

1. 
   *]Are you saying that something was lost in the translation from Aramaic (to possibly Hebrew) to Greek?
   *]Why do you think Peter chopped of the ear of a man?

 

[RAR]

Well, RAR, to your father i might ask, “Which is he, a rock or a stone? For certainly a small pebble on the landscape of a yard is not the same as the bedrock on which a home stands!”

However, i’m interested in exploring this idea about Peter further, if you do not mind answering this question: Why did Peter chop of the ear of a man?

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

(John 18:10-11)

Please don’t lead me, Soc. Just take me where you want me to go and I’ll respond.

To your question, I would have to say simply Peter was reacting emotionally. I love Peter for this reason… what a model!!! He reacts so predictably human. He is impulsive and weak at times, but following our Lords resurrection, takes up the charge that was given him and truly leads his sheep.

RAR

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Difficult to describe. I can say that it was overpowering. I was in my room praying about the book when suddenly I was overcome by a tremendous feeling deep within me. I have never forgotten it and it has kept me at the outer edges of mormonism for over 30 years. I will never deny that feeling. Nor will I ever claim it to be a ‘warm fuzzy’.

At that time, I considered it to be truth manifesting to me. And I also remember my lds baptism very well. It was also a tremendous feeling of the holy ghost’s pressence. And I can not deny that truth either.

To deny the holy ghost is a terrible sin in the lds faith and I will never hopefully commit that sin even if I were to commit myself totally to the catholic faith.

Thank you for sharing your personal experience with me. In my desire to know more, i suppose i could pry, but this might be rude. I think instead i will offer a few quotes by those who say they had encounters with God. Please let me know if any of these experiences are similar to your own:

(A) The Holy Spirit had continually shown me that my real welfare for time and eternity depended upon the surrender of my life to the services of God. After a long controversy I made this submission, cast myself on His mercy, received the assurance of His pardon, and gave myself up to His service with all my heart. The hour, the place, and many other particulars of this glorious transaction are recorded indelibly on my memory.
(B) My soul is filled with joy unspeakable. I seem to swim in a flood of glory, which God pours down on me.
(C) No words can express the wonderful love that was shed abroad in my heart. I wept aloud with joy and love; and I do not know but I should say, I literally bellowed out the unutterable gushings of my heart. The waves came over me, and over me, one after the other, until I recollect I cried out, “I shall die if these waves continue to pass over me.” I said, “Lord, I cannot bear anymore”; yet I had no fear of death.
(D) After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak.

(E) About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

(F) In the morning, I felt my soul hungering and thirsting after righteousness. In the forenoon, while I was looking ohn the sacred elements, and thinking the Jesus Christ would soon be “set forth crucified before me,” my soul was filled with light and love, so that I was almost in ecstasy. My body was so weak I could hardly stand. I felt at the same time an exceeding tenderness, and most fervent love towards all mandkind; so that my soul, and all the powers it seemed, as it were, to melt into softness and sweetness. This love and joy cast out fear, and my soul longed for perfect grace and glory.
(G) And as my faithful testimony both to their life and doctrine, I declare, and be it known to all that ever knew me, that when the unspeakable riches of God’s love visited me, by the call of His glorious light, from the dark practices, wandering notions, and vain conversation of this polluted world, and that my heart was influenced thereby, and consequently disposed for the more intimate and sincere receptions of it; those very habits which I once judged impossible, whilst here, to have relinquished, and did allow myself a liberty therein, because not openly gross or scandalous, became not only burdensome, and by the light were manifested to be of another nature than that which I was called to participation of; but in my faithful adherence to its holy counsel and instructions, I was immediately endued with power that gave dominion over them.
(H) O, how great has been the mercy of God towards me! How often, when I was almost overcome, has He been my deliverer! Sometimes my Passions assail me as a whirlwind; but God sent forth His arrows and dissipated them. The attack was often renewed, but God was still my support. By degrees I was weaned from everything earthly, and adhered to God alone. Then, I experienced how sweet, how full of mercy God is to those who truly love Him. O my God! How merciful has Thou been to me!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Please don’t lead me, Soc. Just take me where you want me to go and I’ll respond.

To your question, I would have to say simply Peter was reacting emotionally. I love Peter for this reason… what a model!!! He reacts so predictably human. He is impulsive and weak at times, but following our Lords resurrection, takes up the charge that was given him and truly leads his sheep.

RAR

Please be patient, RAR! A good dialog is like a walk through a beautiful woods on the side of a mountain, with birds and all manner of wildlife on one side of the trail, and rushing streams and waterfalls on the other. One might drive to the top of the mountain, get out, take a brief look around, and then get back in the car and drive home; however, the journey would not be as memorable nor as sweet.



Regarding your answer, yes, Peter was emotional, and he reminds me of myself sometimes, especially when he puts his foot in his mouth! Yet, that was not what i was asking, so i should ask a more clear question:

Do you think Peter’s act of violently severing a man’s ear from his head was one of selfless obedience to Christ, or one of selfish pride?

 

[TOmNossor]

Thank you, TOm. Two questions, please:

1. 
   *]Are you saying that something was lost in the translation from Aramaic (to possibly Hebrew) to Greek?

1. 
   As a LDS, I could say that yes the Greek is expressing Christ’s Aramaic idea with a little “faulty translation.” But, such would be unfair.
   Peter a male could not be called “petra” a large rock (like the cliff face at Caesarea Philippi where Christ likely motioned to as they were standing at the base of this impressive structure). A male must have a male name “petros,” which fortunately for those who wish to not be Catholic means “small stone.” So when Matthew wrote this he used proper Greek (assuming it was first written in Greek which it likely was). He did this not to minimize Peter, but to be grammatically correct.
   Even though this argument should be empty already, the truth is Jesus was probably speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, “Kepha = Kepha” no issue, Protestant argument done.
   
   This is Catholic apologetics 101. I did not learn it when I challenged a Catholic on a LDS message board, on a Protestant message board, or even on a Catholic message board. I learned it because I searched for the Catholic response to this common anti-Catholic chestnut.
   
   When I die a non-Catholic, assuming I do die a non-Catholic which seems pretty likely, it will be because I have found the BEST reasons to be a Catholic I could absorb and I have compared them to the BEST reasons to be a LDS. This best to best comparison in the most unbiased way I could test it resulted in the CoJCoLDS being the structure most likely to be lead most directly by Christ and His authority.
   
   I find your call (you claimed God wants you here) to investigate Mormonism on a Catholic board curious. Perhaps God wanted you to do this so I can tell you to not employ methodology likely to produce a result when seeking Him. You will not get the BEST info about the CoJCoLDS here. If you choose a methodology that is likely to produce a certain result and the methodology does in fact produce that result, then it is VERY difficult to determine if the result is a product of truth or faulty methodology. It is my message to you that your Pros vs. Cons list is suboptimal methodology, but it is radically suboptimal methodology considering the fact that the bulk of your list is produced by Catholics on a Catholic message board and your purported goal is to assess the strength of Mormonism.
   
   If you have the energy, you can take every Con on your list and search for said Con with “anti-Mormon.” This usually produces a list of LDS apologetic responses since critics of the church seldom call themselves anti-Mormon. This is what I did with every Catholic criticism I thought might be valid. In a couple of days I had dismissed most of anti-Catholic Protestantism as having little negative to say about Catholicism.
   
   I think the only reason to be a Catholic or a LDS is that God calls one to be a member of His Church. This call can be intellectual and/or spiritual, but it is God’s will in our lives that we must seek. I may or may not be “invincibly ignorant” of Catholic truth when I die, but it will not be because I did not attempt to vince my ignorance.
   
   Charity, TOm

 

[East_Anglican]

Difficult to describe. I can say that it was overpowering. I was in my room praying about the book when suddenly I was overcome by a tremendous feeling deep within me. I have never forgotten it and it has kept me at the outer edges of mormonism for over 30 years. I will never deny that feeling. Nor will I ever claim it to be a ‘warm fuzzy’.

At that time, I considered it to be truth manifesting to me. And I also remember my lds baptism very well. It was also a tremendous feeling of the holy ghost’s pressence. And I can not deny that truth either.

To deny the holy ghost is a terrible sin in the lds faith and I will never hopefully commit that sin even if I were to commit myself totally to the catholic faith.

Was it the burning in the bosoom thing that Mormons get by self hypnosis?

 

[steve_b]

Please be patient, RAR! A good dialog is like a walk through a beautiful woods on the side of a mountain, with birds and all manner of wildlife on one side of the trail, and rushing streams and waterfalls on the other. One might drive to the top of the mountain, get out, take a brief look around, and then get back in the car and drive home; however, the journey would not be as memorable nor as sweet.



Regarding your answer, yes, Peter was emotional, and he reminds me of myself sometimes, especially when he puts his foot in his mouth! Yet, that was not what i was asking, so i should ask a more clear question:

Do you think Peter’s act of violently severing a man’s ear from his head was one of selfless obedience to Christ, or one of selfish pride?

@ 12 years old, I took Peter as my confirmation name. Hope you don’t mind me jumping in on this question.

In all other instances prior to this, Jesus slipped neatly away from His persuers. This time Jesus allowed Himself to be taken and it was intensely unpleasant for Peter to see. I always thought Malcus was lucky he only lost an ear!

I don’t see Peter’s actions as an obedience OR a pride issue. I see it as Peter sensing a far different situation than they have been in before. This is different from the time they were in the boat ready to get swamped in a storm thinking they would die and Jesus calmed the storm with one command. Something was FAR different here, Jesus wasn’t doing what He’s always done before, and I think Peter felt it far differently than anything before this. This time he wasn’t concerned about his own life, this time he wanted to protect Jesus from those who would do HIM harm. On a visceral level, I understand this kind of love and loyalty. And I also appreciate the far bigger lessons that are taught from this.

 

[steve_b]

Regarding reason 53, i see where the Book of Mormon is contrary to the Bible on certain essential doctrines–most strikingly on the nature of Jesus Christ. From what i understand, the book teaches that He was not the God, but one of three gods. I think, therefore, that i should compare the evidence that supports the Bible with the evidence that supports the Book of Mormon to see which is more trustworthy.

Can anyone tell me why i should believe the Bible when it disagrees with the Book of Mormon, or why i should believe the Book of Mormon when it contradicts the Bible?

seems to me Mormonism and the BOM depend on the translation of Joseph Smith of the solid gold plates of Nephi. Where are these plates? Mormonism isn’t that old. It’s an American religion, started in New York. Surely there is a copy of these plates, it’s the foundation of Mormonism.

Is one explanation true, that they’re not here because the angel Moroni took them back to heaven?