Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps my statement would be better stated “My point is that debating the truthfulness of any church based only on the subjective experiences of individuals is pointless.”

I apologize for not communicating clearly, I can see where my statement did not fully portray my thoughts.

Yeah, well, I have my own experience, which I don’t discount at all. Whether or not others accept that experience, is up to them. I know what it means to me.

 

[Chris-WA]

Not to mention the testimonies are of the Apostles who lived and learned at the feet of Christ.

Very good point. And some of the Early Church Fathers themselves sat at the feet of the original 12 Apostles and learned directly from them. Though most of their material is not considered scripture, it should at least be considered very important historical information as to how the early church functioned and believed. When you read their materials in conjuction with the bible, it becomes very clear that these men were ***thoroughly Catholic ***in practice and belief. Most importantly, they believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is the new covenant. This cannot be reconciled with Mormonism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ah, a valid point. But the scriptures contain both historical accounts and personal testimonies. Not to mention the testimonies are of the Apostles who lived and learned at the feet of Christ. By it’s definition “Apostle” means an authorized representative and we should therefore accept the words of ancient apostles as that of christ himself. This is not the same for an average individual who is bearing testimony (either for or against) the church.
The most important thing to find is a common ground for us both to stand on. If we are to discuss the validity of a given church we must first find a foundation we both agree on ie; the bible. It is (inside the christian world) accepted as fact and we can look at different doctrines in comparison to what the bible says.
For example I would not try to convince you of the validity of the practice of baptisms for the dead by using the D&C since you do not accept them as canonical. I could however show you scriptures in the Bible that I believe point to the practice of baptisms for the dead by the early church and we could have an intelligent discussion based on that.
This is in fact exactly what the book of Acts tells us to do:
Acts 17: 2, 11
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
• • •
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

2 Tim. 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I probably should have quoted these scriptures in the beginning to silence the critics I have upset thus far, but the truth is the truth whether they believe it or not. (also notice I did not quote the BOM, I quoted the Bible which a few people have stated that LDS do not like to do)

My experience with mormon and scriptures is that you take things out context, and twist scripture around to give it a meaning that was never intended. As such, I have come to a point where I have no interest in discussing scriptures with mormons.

This is of course my own personal experience, and there may be others that are interested in wasting their time.

 

[thirdnep11]

It happens.

Although I still object to the “subjective” statement. What is that saying “innocent until proven guilty”?

Let’s take an example from both our Churches history of what i would describe as a subjective experience.

The prophet Joseph Smith claimed to have seen Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the first vision. There is no way to prove that his account is accurate.

Now look at the experiences inside the Catholic church with people seeing the Virgin Mary. Is there any way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people have seen her?

The fact is neither one of us could go into a court of law and prove that either of these things happened. The circumstances are the same in regards to the resurrection of Christ. We cannot prove it. If we could man would not need faith, we would have a perfect knowledge.

Objective truth, however, can be proven. Or is at least accepted by both parties as being true ie; the Bible.

 

[thirdnep11]

My experience with mormon and scriptures is that you take things out context, and twist scripture around to give it a meaning that was never intended. As such, I have come to a point where I have no interest in discussing scriptures with mormons.

This is of course my own personal experience, and there may be others that are interested in wasting their time.

I understand your frustration. Each church (and there are hundreds of thousands) interpret the same passages of the Bible to mean different things.

This is what I love about the LDS church and the Catholic church, is we have faith in a Prophet/Pope who is God’s authorized representative on earth and can set down the meanings of scriptures. This is exactly what the Apostle Paul was speaking of in
Ephesians 4:11
And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

If we did not have the Prophet, and you the Pope, dissensions would arise inside the church and it would self-destruct.

 

[ibkc]

Let’s take an example from both our Churches history of what i would describe as a subjective experience.

The prophet Joseph Smith claimed to have seen Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the first vision. There is no way to prove that his account is accurate.

Now look at the experiences inside the Catholic church with people seeing the Virgin Mary. Is there any way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people have seen her?

The fact is neither one of us could go into a court of law and prove that either of these things happened.

The Catholic Church does not make doctrine on the basis of Marian apparitions, and in order for the apparitions to even be approved, they undergo a strict investigatory process. The Mormons built an entire religion on Joseph Smith’s word alone.

Big, big difference.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I understand your frustration. Each church (and there are hundreds of thousands) interpret the same passages of the Bible to mean different things.

This is what I love about the LDS church and the Catholic church, is we have faith in a Prophet/Pope who is God’s authorized representative on earth and can set down the meanings of scriptures. This is exactly what the Apostle Paul was speaking of in
Ephesians 4:11
And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

If we did not have the Prophet, and you the Pope, dissensions would arise inside the church and it would self-destruct.

A Pope is not a prophet, and I don’t accept that your “prophet” is one.

 

[majick275]

I understand your frustration. Each church (and there are hundreds of thousands) interpret the same passages of the Bible to mean different things.

This is what I love about the LDS church and the Catholic church, is we have faith in a Prophet/Pope who is God’s authorized representative on earth and can set down the meanings of scriptures. This is exactly what the Apostle Paul was speaking of in
Ephesians 4:11
And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

If we did not have the Prophet, and you the Pope, dissensions would arise inside the church and it would self-destruct.

if you believe this then I would say you have been misinformed on the Catholic church. ecumenical councils are more the norm and there is much study by many people over much time before anything is proclaimed “ex cathedra” as dogma. further, this is always documented from which we derive catechisms that eliminate “fuzziness” from what we believe AND (more importantly) these cannot change. one pope or council or however you choose to view the instrument of the magisterium cannot contradict a previous one. development of an established position can become more detailed. application of the deposit of faith can be made to new situations but the canon is closed and all doctrine must conform to the perfect revelation of Christ that we already have.

in spite of this dissensions have arisen in both churches.

 

[Elric]

Let’s take an example from both our Churches history of what i would describe as a subjective experience.

You seem to be changing your argument.

And Im not cathloic by the way.

The prophet Joseph Smith claimed to have seen Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the first vision. There is no way to prove that his account is accurate.

Now look at the experiences inside the Catholic church with people seeing the Virgin Mary. Is there any way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people have seen her?

Have seen her/them?

There is no way to be 100% certain that I know of.

But this is really a different matter to people speaking of their experiences within a church, which is what we were talking about.

The fact is neither one of us could go into a court of law and prove that either of these things happened.

Actually you could, witnesses to the event would help and photographic evidence would also help.

But here is the thing. You were not talking about dismissing someones tale of a divine vision, you were talking about dismissing a persons story of personal experiences as subjective (and insinuating that they are lying). This is what you said:

“I truly wish that people would stop sharing their own personal horror stories about other churches. There is no way for any of us to substantiate our claims, and it is truly insulting for a non-LDS, even an individual who was once a member and has since left the church, to propagate their own personal interpretations/opinions on what the church taught/teaches as though it should stand as a testimony against the church itself.”

This talk of divine visions is simply changing the topic.

The circumstances are the same in regards to the resurrection of Christ. We cannot prove it. If we could man would not need faith, we would have a perfect knowledge.

Again, this has nothing to do with what was being discussed. It certainly isnt why I objected to your use of the term “subjective”.

Objective truth, however, can be proven. Or is at least accepted by both parties as being true ie; the Bible.

Again a different topic.

 

[thirdnep11]

The Catholic Church does not make doctrine on the basis of Marian apparitions, and in order for the apparitions to even be approved, they undergo a strict investigatory process. The Mormons built an entire religion on Joseph Smith’s word alone.

Big, big difference.

I was merely giving an example of what a subjective experience was.
They were examples nothing more.

 

[thirdnep11]

You know I came on here to gain an idea of what the Catholic church taught and how they viewed mormons in general. I have to say I am disappointed. Very few of you are willing to show even an inkling of understanding towards a different viewpoint. You have misrepresented, skewed and demeaned the doctrines of the LDS church and the beliefs of millions of fellow humans.

I have tried to share my feelings on a number of topics only to have my views twisted and thrown back in my face.

I hoped that people who call themselves christians could show christlike love to a fellow man, especially one who they would say is in a state of apostasy and in need of grace. I was wrong.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You know I came on here to gain an idea of what the Catholic church taught and how they viewed mormons in general. I have to say I am disappointed. Very few of you are willing to show even an inkling of understanding towards a different viewpoint. You have misrepresented, skewed and demeaned the doctrines of the LDS church and the beliefs of millions of fellow humans.

I have tried to share my feelings on a number of topics only to have my views twisted and thrown back in my face.

I hoped that people who call themselves christians could show christlike love to a fellow man, especially one who they would say is in a state of apostasy and in need of grace. I was wrong.

I haven’t read everything so I can only respond to what is in this thread.

First, this is a non-Catholic area of a Catholic apologetics forum. You can imagine there is a lot of disagreement to be found. And not much agreement to mormon beliefs, in general.

And, for someone who is self-proclaiming “apostasy”, I’d say you come across as a strong mormon.

Stick around.

 

[majick275]

well maybe you shouldn’t assume that we are ignorant of LDS history, doctrines, etc. and that we are firm in our convictions of the Catholic church being the one that Jesus established and still presides over.

you seem to be unwilling to consider a different viewpoint yourself and yet to anything other than unfounded allegations to support your viewpoint. exactly how do you believe LDS doctrines have been misrepresented? I think the LDS are the worst about misrepresenting their own doctrines and quite frankly these doctrines are in the eyes of the Catholic church horrid blasphemy. lest you think that unfair persecution look to your own scriptures that claim that our creeds are an abomination the sight of God and all of us who profess them corrupt. your church claims a global apostasy so complete as to eliminate all sacramental grace from the earth for 1800 years and now only available to mormons.

if you want to know what the catholic church teaches it’s easy we have a catechism. you can find numerous resources right here on catholic answers that you can peruse at leisure. if you want to know how catholics view mormons in general then you should not be surprised by what you have found. perhaps you came here at whyme’s call on mormonapologetics or maybe you came here on yor own. in any case you really sound alot like the other LDs “missionaries” who drop in here hoping to find easy referals. if your interest is sincere then please stay and discuss. get some thick skin though as amgid/zerinus and others like him have certainly formed an LDS stance that does not encourage “kumbayah” type handholding nor is apologetics an area that is kind to the “toe dipper”. if you believe you have the truth then I would think you would be best served by preaching on the various LDS forums established for that purpose. if you aren’t sure then you might want to research some of the responses you’ve gotten, stinging though they may be to determine their veracity for yourself. the results may surprise you.

in any case may God bless you.

 

[Kristine1957]

I don’t think it matters if you are Pro or Con the Mormon religion. What matters is what is
THE TRUTH!!

For starters read Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves…

READ and get down on your knees and pray! and then pray some more!! and read some more. If you search the doctrine the correct answer will always be God’s Holy Catholic and Apostolic church!!

 

[TOmNossor]

You know I came on here to gain an idea of what the Catholic church taught and how they viewed mormons in general. I have to say I am disappointed. Very few of you are willing to show even an inkling of understanding towards a different viewpoint. You have misrepresented, skewed and demeaned the doctrines of the LDS church and the beliefs of millions of fellow humans.

I have tried to share my feelings on a number of topics only to have my views twisted and thrown back in my face.

I hoped that people who call themselves christians could show christlike love to a fellow man, especially one who they would say is in a state of apostasy and in need of grace. I was wrong.

Thirdnep11,
I can remember thinking that Catholics should understand what it is like to have your religion maligned with half-truths, lies, and even truths custom chosen for their negative impact.
When I felt the need to learn about Catholicism I went to a fairly tame board with moderate to low traffic and did not immediately volunteer (but did not hide) the fact that I was a LDS. I needed some answers to threatening questions, but I found it was simple to find them by doing a google search like this:
+“Catholics worship Mary” +anti-Catholic

Seldom do anti-Catholics call themselves anti-Catholic.

I also needed some answers on the intricacies of infallibility and … which I could readily explore on a board like that. You might find that if you change your name and go to the Catholic apologetic section that you can learn without being attacked.
Finally, I went to explore the attacks offered by Protestants against Catholics. I offered my perspective which was generally a defense of Catholicism. I am not noble enough to have continued this for more than a few weeks, but I did learn.

Now, Catholics in this section of Catholic Answer are very similar in there anti-Mormon apologetics to James White. This is remarkable because many of the them are aware of James White and find his anti-Catholicism problematic. But as was mentioned earlier on this thread about Richard Packham’s website (paraphrase) “He is an atheist, so only use his thoughts against Mormonism, other thoughts might be problematic.”

Here is a little quote that I like to offer. It was written sometime between 1998-2001 by a Catholic Priest named Jordan Vajda. Towards former-Father Vajda’s salvation, his entrance into the CoJCoLDS is a good thing, but it means that Catholics now dismiss him as having “taken leave of his senses” (that is a direct quote). However, unlike most Catholic folks here (not all), Father Vajda could see the similarities between anti-Catholicism and anti-Mormonism. Here is his quote still a number of years before he became a LDS:

More to the point though, as regards the underlying motive for this thesis, was my eventual perception that one connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label “Christian” to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church—with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the Catholic Church, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the LDS Church—as to its “non-Christian” status—were equally flawed.

May God bless you as you learn about Catholicism. I feel blessed by my exposure to Catholic thought both when I agree and when I disagree. I am not here so much to learn (but I am thankful when I do), but I attempt to be fair as I respond or turn criticisms back at those folks who I think are attacking my faith.
Charity, TOm

 

[thirdnep11]

Let me return to the original purpose of this thread and give one Pro for the LDS church and that is it’s Priesthood organization.

1.We have a President/Prophet as was Peter.
2.He has 2 counselors like James and John as is evidenced by their presence at the raising of the daughter of Jairus and at the garden of gethsemane.
3.The original missionaries of the LDS church were the Apostles just as in biblical times. when the mission field grew too large for members of the Quorum to go themselves the prophet chose a quorum of 70 to go in their stead. This is exactly what happened in the bible. The field has grown so much that young men now serve missions bearing a portion of the Apostolic authority to preach the gospel. but the quorum of the 12 and the 70 are still intact today as they were in biblical times (both old and new testament for the 70)
4.The smallest organization in the church or “ward” is still headed by bishops just as in ancient times.
5.Obviously we still have a quorum of 12 Apostles today.

To my knowledge there is no other church that adheres in such exactness to the original structure of Christs church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thirdnep11,
I can remember thinking that Catholics should understand what it is like to have your religion maligned with half-truths, lies, and even truths custom chosen for their negative impact.
When I felt the need to learn about Catholicism I went to a fairly tame board with moderate to low traffic and did not immediately volunteer (but did not hide) the fact that I was a LDS. I needed some answers to threatening questions, but I found it was simple to find them by doing a google search like this:
+“Catholics worship Mary” +anti-Catholic

Seldom do anti-Catholics call themselves anti-Catholic.

I also needed some answers on the intricacies of infallibility and … which I could readily explore on a board like that. You might find that if you change your name and go to the Catholic apologetic section that you can learn without being attacked.
Finally, I went to explore the attacks offered by Protestants against Catholics. I offered my perspective which was generally a defense of Catholicism. I am not noble enough to have continued this for more than a few weeks, but I did learn.

Now, Catholics in this section of Catholic Answer are very similar in there anti-Mormon apologetics to James White. This is remarkable because many of the them are aware of James White and find his anti-Catholicism problematic. But as was mentioned earlier on this thread about Richard Packham’s website (paraphrase) “He is an atheist, so only use his thoughts against Mormonism, other thoughts might be problematic.”

Here is a little quote that I like to offer. It was written sometime between 1998-2001 by a Catholic Priest named Jordan Vajda. Towards former-Father Vajda’s salvation, his entrance into the CoJCoLDS is a good thing, but it means that Catholics now dismiss him as having “taken leave of his senses” (that is a direct quote). However, unlike most Catholic folks here (not all), Father Vajda could see the similarities between anti-Catholicism and anti-Mormonism. Here is his quote still a number of years before he became a LDS:

May God bless you as you learn about Catholicism. I feel blessed by my exposure to Catholic thought both when I agree and when I disagree. I am not here so much to learn (but I am thankful when I do), but I attempt to be fair as I respond or turn criticisms back at those folks who I think are attacking my faith.
Charity, TOm

If you are finding communication difficult, you could well look to the adage “it takes two”. I have done the same as you, on a mormon apologetic board, that is, kept the fact that I was a former mormon from being known, for the very reason you portray here. You HATE former mormons. And try to blame those you hate for that hate. It is in your very culture, that label apostate, is thrown around as both the worse fear and the highest of insults. So don’t come around here with your fear and hate and try to tell us it is our fault.

 

[TOmNossor]

If you are finding communication difficult, you could well look to the adage “it takes two”.

Ok, show me where I said it was difficult to communicate.
I said that a number of Catholics on this thread parallel and quality the attacks of anti-Catholics when they attack the CoJCoLDS. The communication is quite clear to me.

I have done the same as you, on a mormon apologetic board, that is, kept the fact that I was a former mormon from being known, for the very reason you portray here.

The fact that I am/was a former Catholic as I sought to learn more about Catholicism was not particularly important. I was convinced that I did not know things about the Catholic Church that were relevant to me determining if I should return to the Catholic Church. It was ignorance that I was attempting to correct.
Also, while I have never been merely a former Catholic on any message board, it has always been my perception that being a LDS was far more likely to incite unhelpful comments than being a former Catholic.

You HATE former mormons. And try to blame those you hate for that hate. It is in your very culture, that label apostate, is thrown around as both the worse fear and the highest of insults. So don’t come around here with your fear and hate and try to tell us it is our fault.

I am quite certain that I do not hate, HATE, or … former Mormons.
I am quite certain that I blame folks for offering anti-Mormon arguments that I think are fallacious or worse and this has little to do with there previous religious affiliation.
It is only rarely that I feel that I am hated, but I am wondering if you are trying to tell me that I should feel hate from you.

Generally, I assume folks are misinformed and lazy when they attack my faith in ways that I think are inappropriate. In truth, I think the same about folks who attack Catholicism in ways that I think are inappropriate.

It is in your very culture, that label apostate, is thrown around as both the worse fear and the highest of insults. So don’t come around here with your fear and hate and try to tell us it is our fault.

This, has a small amount of truth to it by my observation, which is more than I would like to be the case. It is very overblown in its claimed effect. It is my opinion that seldom is the apostate to continued member relationship solely strained by one or the other side. I of course have little experience except as a former Catholic.
My father confided in my that he was pleasantly surprised that I did not cut-off our relationship when I became a LDS like some of his Catholic friends said would happen. Again, I suspect there is something that happens, but I suspect it is overblown.

Finally, I do believe that there was some lack of communication that took place between you and me. It was my intention to communicate to Thirdnep, but I generally agree that when communication does not happen it is a two-way issue. I hope I have corrected some of your misperceptions about me and my post to thirdnep.
Charity, TOm

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The way that the Lord has outlined for knowing the truth of the Book of Mormon is to read it impartially and with an open mind, with a sincere desire to know and obey the truth, and ask the Lord in faith to reveal the truth of it to you; which if you do, the promise is that God will reveal the truth of it to you by the power of the Holy Ghost. If your answer is substantially different from that, it is probably the wrong one.

zerinus

Yes, and my goal is to discover this for myself, Zerinus. For i do not yet know, as you do, that what you say is true. I have been told, by Evangelicals and Catholics alike, that this is in incorrect way of determining truth. “It is from the pit of hell,” one of them tells me, “and it smells like smoke!” Having listened to their reasoning in the past, i came to the conclusion that they must be right; but i have been wrong before, and suffered for it.

Now, you are telling me that they are wrong, and that i am deceived, and so i seriously want to investigate fully whether what you say is true. For, as Socrates said of himself:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief. And I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception (when the deceiver is always at home and always with you) it is quite terrible… .

(Cratylus, 428)
I want always to avoid this terrible fate for myself.

That being said as my purpose, i believe your plan of action for discovering the truth about the way of discovering the truth is a good one. For, you have quoted several verses of the New Testament, which you say support your view that spiritual truth is received apart from reason and only by the witness of the Holy Ghost. If i can see what you see in the New Testament, the words of which i already trust, then i might come to a different conclusion from the one that the Evangelicals and Catholics have lead me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I want to thank you, Zerinus, for sticking it out with me. Though i have tried your patience, you have been good to me. I do appreciate your assistance in my search for the truth. I suppose i see something of Jesus in your attitude toward me. I’m not interested in debate; i’m interested in discovery of the truth.

The method i want to use for knowing whether what you say is true will be to examine the meaning of the words of the passages of the New Testament you have quoted to support your view. I want to see if they say what you say they say, or if they say what the Mormon critics say they say. I want the truth to have its say, and let Him be my guide. As Paul advises me:

Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”

(Romans 3:4)