Question for LDS re: non-LDS materials

[majick275]

The entire LDS church falls if Joseph Smith wasn’t a true prophet just like it falls if there is no great Apostasy. That’s the relevance here. Showing the TRUTH about Joseph Smith allows people to see that JS was in fact a womanizing con man. A fraud who changed scriptures, doctrines and practices at will for his own personal benefit. The LDS church has been proven to have sanitized, edited, and outright revised it’s history and punished it’s own historians when they objected or even when they just tried to tell the truth. They have a program based on effective sales techniques for gaining converts that is certainly NOT helping people to make informed decisions about joining. They pressure, they persuade they gloss over and don’t let people know the truth. The Catholic RCIA does teach the crusades, the inquisition, the reformation. These things show that the church will always prevail but also that we have to watch out for harmful individuals and heretical groups. RCIA gives people an awful lot of information over a long enough period time to digest it. Further, the Catholic church has a catechism where you can see what the doctrine is. LDS can always tell converts what they want to hear because there is precious little LDS doctrine that can’t be waved off as “speculation” or “i never heard that” or “we don’t teach that now” or “I don’t think we really understand what that means” to get the unsuspecting past their objections and into the cult.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Showing the TRUTH about Joseph Smith allows people to see that JS was in fact a womanizing con man. A fraud who changed scriptures, doctrines and practices at will for his own personal benefit.

There is an answer to that. Remember that Jesus too was called Beelzebub. Well, this is the advice He gave to His disciples in connection with that:

Matthew 10:

25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
As for those who called Him Beelzebub, this is what He had to say to them:

Matthew 12:

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
He also gave them the following counsel:

Matthew 12:

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
amgid

 

[majick275]

I completely agree with those scriptures. Joseph Smiths secrets are revealed, his blasphemies and wickedness will be judged by God.

 

[edmondhall]

Most members of the Church would be better off if they simply ignored the specious claims of the professional anti-Mormons

What is the difference between posing honest, tough questions, and engaging in professional ‘anti-mormon’ attacks? I’ve seen some hair trigger reactions on the LDS ‘fair’ boards that suggest to me that the label of ‘anti-mormonism’ is an awfully convenient excuse to not deal with tough issues.

 

[flameburns623]

I have read testimonies by both Roman Catholic converts and by LDS converts in which the converts profess to having read material opposing the faith to which they ultmately converted. In most cases, I frankly don’t find the LDS converts very credible. They simply do a very poor job, in most cases, of characterizing exactly what those holding opposing views actually say.

I do realise that LDS publications are sternly ‘faith-promoting’ in many cases, particularly in ‘official’ publications approved for general consumption by LDS faithful. Also that, before the 1970’s and 1980’s, it was the literary style of many writers, particularly religious writers, to refer to critics in general terms and not by name nor in footnotes. (The idea seems to have been partly that one ought not to put someone ‘on the spot’ partly also the idea was that such criticisms did not originate with one person in most cases; finally, there was the desire NOT to encourage one’s own Faithful to go ill-advisedly looking for materials critical of their faith, for which the naive might not be fully prepared to confront. By the 1990’s it had become a very boad-based concern that one be fully accurate in how one cited a given charge, and also that one avoid even the appearance of plagiarism, and so these days we more commonly DO see footnotes or references-by-name).

All of this being as it may, and apart from what I see going on at expressly-LDS apologetic forums like FAIR-LDS–Mormons simply don’t seem wont to ‘play fair’ in discussing how their critics oppose them. This is in sharp contrast to what I have seen of Roman Catholics who have converted: they traditionally have done a very good job of characterising the material they reviewed along their way to conversion to the RCC. Oddly–a lot of the polemical works by Catholic converts which I have read since the 1990’s have sort of lost something. Scott Hahn’s “Rome Sweet Rome” among others seems to have been written long after he became a ‘true believer’ in the RCC, and I remember feeling a bit disatisfied that he had lost any sense of how an Evangelical Protestant would have answered some of the issues he raised along his way into the RCC. I’ve read several compendiums of contemporary Catholic converts which left me similarly disatisfied. I’m probably not being clear but this is a bit off the topic anyhow.

In general however–I think that most Roman Catholic converts have been given at least a glimpse of the character of the criticisms directed at the RCC. In home-teaching various inactive LDS converts as well as in what I have read and experienced myself, I think that very few LDS converts ARE exposed to such materials. In fact I think they are deliberately steered away from such materials, which is why so many are shocked later to realize just how many problems exist with the foundations of Mormonism.
majic275:

Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the LDS church is against OBJECTIVE research and dialogue. I think Boyd Packer has made that clear.

Mainly it is ‘objective reasearch’ published in popular books and periodicals which I think is Packer’s concern. What shows in strictly academic circles is probably below the radar screen of the LDS General Authorities. The same issue comes up in the RCC though less commonly these days I think. It was the purpose of the Index of Prohibted Books, and of similar listings on books and movies extant within popular culture, which you could once find in diocesan and some nationally-distributed Roman Catholic publications.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

edmondhall:

What is the difference between posing honest, tough questions, and engaging in professional ‘anti-mormon’ attacks? I’ve seen some hair trigger reactions on the LDS ‘fair’ boards that suggest to me that the label of ‘anti-mormonism’ is an awfully convenient excuse to not deal with tough issues.

The difference is in how it’s ‘asked’. You see, sometimes it isn’t ‘asked’ or respectfully put forward at all, but rather with an air of “You demonic devil worshipper, here is what your cult does”-kind of attitude (full-out anti-Mo). Even if it is not that strong, often the implication is that such a person has already studied out a particular issue and come to the conclusion that Mormons are just wrong and that nothing will convince them otherwise. At other times, the presentation is a challenge, a call to battle: “If you’re really so right then prove it to me and I’ll prove you wrong” (arrogant fanatic). Not often are sincere questions and doubts brought out, and when they are it’s usually by believing or interested members and investigators, or people of other religions that are good, sincere and humble and want to know the whole truth and not have to look at their Mormon friends and family members with distaste. This difference also applies to Catholics by many, including protestants by the bunch, so you know what I’m talking about.

One big problem in the apologetics of any denomination is the judgment of which category someone falls into when addressing controversial or commonly attacked issues and then how such inquiries/challenges are responded to. Sometimes it’s hard for me to distinguish who is sincere and humble and who just wants to win an argument and support what they already believe, even at the cost of attacking others’ beliefs. It is important to remember that we’re not all antis and fanatics, and it is better when in doubt to remember to not respond as if we were (speaking in general, not just about LDS).

 

[edmondhall]

Sometimes it’s hard for me to distinguish who is sincere and humble and who just wants to win an argument and support what they already believe, even at the cost of attacking others’ beliefs.

I understand your point about critics who only accuse and don’t listen. I’m sure I fall into that category sometimes.

The sticking point for me, however, is the characterization of ‘attacking others’ beliefs’. If I point out that there is no DNA or anthropological evidence to support the contention found in the BOM that present day Native Americans are semites, is that an attack? If I say cults have characterstics a.b.c and set out to show the LDS church has characteristics a,b,c, is that an attack? Is the difference between an attack and a reasoned argument simply the manner in which each is delivered?

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Is the difference between an attack and a reasoned argument simply the manner in which each is delivered?

Yup. And attacks usually come in the form of reasoned arguments; the difference is that with serious truth-seeking, a reasoned answer is sought after and trying to understand another’s POV is the goal, whereas with fanatical challenging no answer will be seriously considered.

So, what is your motive for wanting to prove Mormonism wrong?

 

[edmondhall]

I don’t need to prove it’s wrong, I think the evidence is plain enough. My interest is in what I perceive to be the suppression and distortion of information.

What if there was a sudden discovery that many of the purported writings of the ECFs supporting Catholic doctrine (e.g., the Eucharist) were forged? And what if, in fact, the true writings of the ECFs were consonat with LDS teachings. And then, what if the Vatican engaged in distortion and suppression. Wouldn’t you, as an LDS, be highly motivated to break through the veil of distortion and suppression in order to get Catholics to seriously consider the new evidence?

As an aside, I have a corrollary interest in discourse with LDS–I’m simply interested in learning more about their beleifs and how they justify those beliefs. So, you see, I’m not a complete anti

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Edmond, that would trouble me a good deal. The moment that we start to show proof of spiritual things, the need for faith is diminished and the road to a more worldly organization has begun. This would have a more negative than positive effect. I don’t believe that such evidence will ever come out either for or against Mormonism. Evidence to a degree, yes, but not something on the scale you’re referring to. If it did I would consider it a sign of the second coming. Seriously.

I don’t need to prove it’s wrong, I think the evidence is plain enough. My interest is in what I perceive to be the suppression and distortion of information.

Are you prepared to admit that the evidence is not so plain? Are you patient enough to not condemn but rather increase in understanding?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I completely agree with those scriptures. Joseph Smiths secrets are revealed, his blasphemies and wickedness will be judged by God.

He also had this to say to them:

Matthew 12:

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
amgid

 

[majick275]

Yep that’s right on target and describes JS, BY and the others of their ilk.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

majick, since when did you decide to fit into the ‘full-out anti-Mo’ category? I had always considered you just an ‘arrogant fanatic’.

 

[edmondhall]

The moment that we start to show proof of spiritual things, the need for faith is diminished and the road to a more worldly organization has begun

‘Proof’ is too strong a term and I don’t think I used it–I’m talking about ‘reasons’…reasons to believe. I think reason and faith can work together toward discovering truth. For instance, I’m a convert from a protestant background; entering the Catholic Church on Easter 2000 was beautiful for me, beyond words. The journey from there to here was the result of God’s grace, and it involved asking questions and examining assumptions that were long-held by me. I wasn’t looking at proofs, but reasons. In my (admitedly limited) interactions with LDS I find a too easy dismissal of tough questions and an easy readiness to hide behind a cloak of emotional experience (testimony?) and subjectivity. And in my experience, an easy readiness to label critics as ‘anti mormon’ and thereby conflating their message (which has validity) with their way of presenting it.

 

[majick275]

labels seem to be a preferred tool of LDS used to ignore the message. arrogant no confident yes. fanatic? hmm… I guess that depends on your POV. anti-mo? depends again on POV. are you anti-gay? anti-criminal? ant-satanist? ant-choice? People could and do use those labels to describe many Christians. I oppose that which I know to be wrong. I have extensively studied Catholicism and found it to be the church that Jesus established. I think that makes me confident but not an arrogant fanatic. I have studied Mormonism in great depth as well. I have found it be false. Now this is not just the “hey were just folks talking about sayeeslaw vs. keynes economics” type of false. I honestly believe that there are absolutes in life. What God gives us must be shared. Spread the Gospel. I also beleive that we have to be vigilant against Satan and what tries to foist off on us. I think this applies to Mormonism. Just as my speaking out against legalized prostitution or drugs does not make me “anti-(fill in the blank)” and my denunciation of same sex marriage does not make “anti-gay” so my denunciation of Mormon heresy does not make me “anti-mormon”. I am not “anti” any of Gods children, I do not call for persecution of individuals. I do denounce what I believe are harmful doctrines and practices. I think that is necessary. I don’t go to LDS sites and attack the folks there. I don’t go to third party “bashboards” either. I stay here at Catholic Answers and provide my (name removed by moderator)ut to defense of the Catholic faith and also to the denunciation of what I believe are dangerous teachings of Mormonism. I also attempt to present the truth in my posts. I have always attemtped to use LDS sources whenever I have presented LDS doctrines and/or practices. I have tried to present entire scriptures, documents, etc. so that if I mistakenly take things out of context it can be shown. I call LDS posters on not doing the same. You can apply labels if you want but it doesn’t make my posts inaccurate. I realize that calling someone “ant-mormon” or “apostate” makes it easier to ignore their analysis and sources as automatically wrong due to bias but it’s self deception at best.

I can easily admit to anything you prove true about mormonism or Catholicism. I have no problem reading any and all articles, materials,etc. that you present and actually studying them to gain understanding. So far though I haven’t seen anything that I hadn’t already studied in my journey for spiritual truth. I have seen many attempts by LDS to claim that their testimony alone makes their view correct. Is that an arrogant fanatic? is that anti-catholic? I don’t think so. I think it much the same as the JWs, branch davidians, seventh day adventists, shakers, etc. I also have my own personal testimony (gained only after MUCH study and prayer) that the Catholic church is the church that Jesus built and also that Mormonism is something that Satan uses to deceive people.

 

[majick275]

I will also admit to being human. amgid really brings out the worst in me and has claimed that it’s “fun”. I sometimes react inappropriately. I have no excuse and apologize to amgid and everyone else here for sometimes being mean. That is wrong and I will try not repeat that mistake.

 

[edmondhall]

You can apply labels if you want but it doesn’t make my posts inaccurate. I realize that calling someone “ant-mormon” or “apostate” makes it easier to ignore their analysis and sources as automatically wrong due to bias but it’s self deception at best.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Sorry, majick. It was a half-joke at your expense based on a previous post of mine. More seriously, I mean to say that you seem more hostile lately. I can understand that some people can provoke that, but we must try to reign in our emotions and be patient – it is an essential part of the road to becoming more like God. After all, sometimes certain people on this board get to me too, but hopefully I don’t let it show that much. If I do, I apologize.

But the subject of labeling is interesting. You should realize that that’s what LDS think you are doing when you JS-bash and BY-bash, whether or not you are truly convinced you’re right or not, and LDS would be convinced that you’re not, and so this whole hiding-behind-stuff argument can be turned on its head. Do some people hide behind the anti-Mo arguments in order to justify what they believe? Surely they do. I bet that many are also honest and believe sincerely that Mormonism is false, but a lot are simply trying to justify their own beliefs and actions. I have met many like this.

As to particulars, I would argue against JS being a womanizer and such statements as that. A while back I really did study all this out and came to the conclusion that it’s mostly a lot of balogna. You must also realize that when people randomly acuse Joseph Smith of fornication and such, the first thing that comes to my mind are all these ridiculous statements that anti-Mos make and that LDS apologists refute without ever being refuted back. You may be thinking of something more specific and valid, but until you say what it is specifically you’re probably going to get categorized along with all the others that are accusing just to cover their hide. For example, Brad Hass mentioned something relating to the Hill Cumorah that I had not before heard about. So I found it interesting and thought about it. In the end, my own conclusions and a post from Ben helped me realize that it was food for thought, but not much else. So when specifics come up, I try to respect them and see what it’s all about. But until then… meh. If you’re serious in your sincerity you should show it.

This brings up another ‘apologetics’ point. Sometimes we explain our position to one person or group of people, and then along comes a newbie know-it-all who demands the whole thing be done over. This is one of the things that is truly annoying to me in this forum. At the same time, we need to realize that some have been here longer than others; sometimes MUCH longer. And we aren’t all familiar with each others’ reasons for believing what we do, and so, to recapitulate, simply going about and calling various people sinful, blah blah blah, etc, or LDS apologetics blah blah blah, we should remember who our audience is.

 

[majick275]

I appreciate what you are saying but I have to stand by my remarks on JS and BY. I think I have provided ample documentation from LDS sources to show what the truth is. I think where LDS disagree is that they don’t believe it was wrong because of D&C 132.