Reasons why Mormonism is false.

[rmcmullan]

What is it that makes a man believe? Hope and faith. A man is free to believe whatever he wants but it’s hope and faith that leads him there. His head and heart and hopefully the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

My point is that as good Catholics, it’s against your whole belief system to allow the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith any credibility. Hope and faith have no foothold and so any argument against his teachings seems credible to you. There’s no archeological evidence, you repeat stories about salamander letters,exagerrate inconsistencies you haven’t even studied. It’s easier to believe that than to say “Well, the Mormons might be right, but I’m a Catholic anyway” There’s security in being able to easily dismiss any Mormon claims to truth.

So, again I ask, if you had all the evidence before you, would that be enough? No. You would need hope and faith and the testimony of the spirit. But that you call emotional manipulation.

 

[wanner47]

My point is that as good Catholics, it’s against your whole belief system to allow the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith any credibility. Hope and faith have no foothold and so any argument against his teachings seems credible to you. There’s no archeological evidence, you repeat stories about salamander letters,exagerrate inconsistencies you haven’t even studied. It’s easier to believe that than to say “Well, the Mormons might be right, but I’m a Catholic anyway” There’s security in being able to easily dismiss any Mormon claims to truth.

What is your response to the archaeological evidence? Can you rebut it using non-Mormon sources?

 

[hosemonkey]

What is it that makes a man believe? Hope and faith. A man is free to believe whatever he wants but it’s hope and faith that leads him there. His head and heart and hopefully the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

My point is that as good Catholics, it’s against your whole belief system to allow the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith any credibility. Hope and faith have no foothold and so any argument against his teachings seems credible to you. There’s no archeological evidence, you repeat stories about salamander letters,exagerrate inconsistencies you haven’t even studied. It’s easier to believe that than to say “Well, the Mormons might be right, but I’m a Catholic anyway” There’s security in being able to easily dismiss any Mormon claims to truth.

So, again I ask, if you had all the evidence before you, would that be enough? No. You would need hope and faith and the testimony of the spirit. But that you call emotional manipulation.

You are wrong in several areas. Firstly, Catholics do not deny the proven historical validity of any religion. We may not agree with what they believe, but we do not and cannot deny the historicity of any of the established separated religions. Judaism is historically traceable, protestantism is historically traceable, Buddism is historically traceable, mohammedanism is historically traceable etc,etc. Mormonism is not historically traceable because it sprang from the fertile imagination of Joseph Smith. Personally, if you want to believe that mormonism is true, you are certainly welcome, warm fuzzies and all. But, without historical proof and with the covertness and secrecy of mormon practice, you’ll have better luck with the tooth fairy.

 

[Allweather]

My point is that as good Catholics, it’s against your whole belief system to allow the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith any credibility. Hope and faith have no foothold and so any argument against his teachings seems credible to you.

R, actually, the problem is that Joseph set off down the wrong roads. If he’d gotten with the local bishops and submitted to their authority, all would have been OK. The BoM could have been properly investigated by the bishops, and in time, accepted or not. But Joseph claimed, right from the git-go, that he was told by the vision to not join any Christian church. Then, as time went by, the church that he founded in 1830 became more and more distant from Christianity, as new teachings were brought in, in the form of “revelation.”

I think hope and faith are beside the point. No one denies that both Mormons and Catholics have hope and faith. The problem is that Mormons (and many other religions) minimize the importance of comparing revelation to what has come before, in order to properly judge it. Since Mormons reject the authority of the ancient faith (Catholicism) they get out of whack with it, and over time, the problems grow.

At the same time, Mormons tend to be very excellent human beings. They have real experience of God in their hearts and their lives. My personal opinion is that this is because God is so much bigger than any of our puny religions, and is able, and willing, to come into the heart of any man or woman who earnestly and honestly seeks Him.

 

[truthsilence]

What is it that makes a man believe? Hope and faith. A man is free to believe whatever he wants but it’s hope and faith that leads him there. His head and heart and hopefully the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

My point is that as good Catholics, it’s against your whole belief system to allow the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith any credibility. Hope and faith have no foothold and so any argument against his teachings seems credible to you. There’s no archeological evidence, you repeat stories about salamander letters,exagerrate inconsistencies you haven’t even studied. It’s easier to believe that than to say “Well, the Mormons might be right, but I’m a Catholic anyway” There’s security in being able to easily dismiss any Mormon claims to truth.

So, again I ask, if you had all the evidence before you, would that be enough? No. You would need hope and faith and the testimony of the spirit. But that you call emotional manipulation.

I would never call hope, faith, or a testimony of the spirit, emotional manipulation. That is just the point. No longer do I rely on emotion as such an incredibly huge guide in my daily journey of faith. Emotions are too unreliable and influenced by too many variables. What has changed for me is that now I realize whether I “feel” him there or not, Christ is always there. I believe, hope, and trust that he is even initiating each and every encounter I have with him. My response is in the way I live my life, and also in worship; personal, and in communion with others at mass. I am sorry you don’t seem to understand the difference, or possibly I am just not explaining very well. As an ex-LDS, I think I am at least somewhat qualified to state that the LDS church puts a lot of emphasis on emotion as a basis for faith. The link I provided illustrates that there is a strategic effort even, to evoke such a response. If you are ok with that, it is your choice. I find it manipulative.

Your comment that hope and faith have no foothold to Catholics is completely erroneous. Faith and hope mean everything to a Catholic. When was the last time you attended mass?

 

[hosemonkey]

I would never call hope, faith, or a testimony of the spirit, emotional manipulation. That is just the point. No longer do I rely on emotion as such an incredibly huge guide in my daily journey of faith. Emotions are too unreliable and influenced by too many variables. What has changed for me is that now I realize whether I “feel” him there or not, Christ is always there. I believe, hope, and trust that he is even initiating each and every encounter I have with him. My response is in the way I live my life, and also in worship; personal, and in communion with others at mass. I am sorry you don’t seem to understand the difference, or possibly I am just not explaining very well. As an ex-LDS, I think I am at least somewhat qualified to state that the LDS church puts a lot of emphasis on emotion as a basis for faith. The link I provided illustrates that there is a strategic effort even, to evoke such a response. If you are ok with that, it is your choice. I find it manipulative.

Your comment that hope and faith have no foothold to Catholics is completely erroneous. Faith and hope mean everything to a Catholic. When was the last time you attended mass?

Good post! If you depend on emotion to support your faith, you build your house on sand. All of us have experienced soaring spiritual moments and also the “dark night of the soul” when you feel very distant from God. But He is always there, through thick and thin, not depending on your emotions to make Him real. To build your testimony on a “burning in the bosom” is folly. What if it’s just heartburn?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

It’s odd that many convert to this false religion and believe it to be truth but it isn’t.

I heard there are more Mormons outside the US. The range I believe is about 12 million.

The lady who wrote ‘out of mormonism’ states that the loving kindness of the mormons contributed to her wanting to join thier church.

 

[Eden]

I find this “where’s the archelogical evidence?” line of attack rather curious. Let’s face it, if the golden plates that contained the Book of Mormon were available to everyone and all the evidence lined up perfectly, it wouldn’t change your mind.

But the golden plates don’t line up perfectly, they fail miserably to accurately record the history of ancient America. This isn’t a hypothesis because we are Catholic and inclined to disbelieve Mormonism. This is fact.

There are very few people that were converted to Christianity because of their love of archeology.

After the conversion (for reasons other than a love of archeology) how can you feel comfortable remaining in a faith in which its holy book inaccurately describes ancient America? The fact that the Book of Mormon contains false information about ancient American plants, animals and metals, necessarily renders it a work of fiction; the product of a fertile and imaginative mind, but nothing more.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

rmcmullan stated that a Catholic might say, “Well, the Mormons might be right, but I’m a Catholic anyway”

Mcmullan, I have read a lot about Mormonism because I am the type of Christian who is open to listening to all religions. If there was a revelation, then I want to learn about it. When I read about Joseph Smith, I come away feeling like this guy duped millions of people. Understand rmc, there is NOTHING about the BoM history that is true. I have begged Mormons to explain the doubts. All I ever hear back is to pray about it and you will know its true.

Have all the hope and faith you want. Most religions have hope and faith. Don’t think Mormons are the only ones. The difference between Mormons and all other Christians and most other religions for that matter is that hope and faith is all you have in order to validate your religion. That is the lie that your church has told you. Your religion is not the first or the last to encourage their members to listen to that little voice. If you offended by the term cult, then you should compare your religion to cults out there. Leaders who had revelations which could not be proven but encouraged their members to rely on faith and hope only.

Ask me anything about Catholicism, I will give you a fact answer. The Church would never expect its members to believe blindly. Jesus came to be the proof, the historical fact, Word made Flesh. He left nothing to hide. All of his accounts are historical, archeologically or mass eye-witness accounts. Never were there doubts. Very few atheists or non-Christians would ever deny the existence of Jesus or the history of His life. Why would it be okay for J. Smith?

 

[truthnlight]

If you have ever invited them in and listened to a presentation of their beliefs, you probably found most but not all of what they said very similar to those beliefs held by Christians. However, while trying to convince you that your Church is wrong and the Mormon Church is right, there are several points they intentionally leave out. Below is a list of Mormon beliefs the missionaries will be reluctant to tell you about:

They will be reluctant to tell you that the God they worship was not always God.
“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 345)

They will be reluctant to tell you that they believe Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Satan:
“The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind.” (Milton R. Hunter, Gospel Through the Ages, pg.15)

They will be reluctant to tell you that, according to Mormonism, Jesus Christ was a polygamist.
“I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.” (Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 2:210)

The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons’" (Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, 1:346)

They will be reluctant to tell you that for at least half a century church leaders were teaching that Adam was really God and the only God with whom we have to do.
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken–He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50)

“I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people and he is the god that pertains to this earth–The first man. That first man sent his own son to redeem the world…”(Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 4:1)

They will be reluctant to tell you that Brigham Young, who held the office of President of the Mormon church longer than any other man, taught that men must practice polygamy in order to become Gods.
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses 11:269)

They will be reluctant to tell you that the book of Mormon fails to contain any Mormon doctrine
Many portions of this Mormon Scripture even contradicts Mormon theology.

They will be reluctant to tell you about their secret temple ceremonies which, until April 1990, portrayed Christian ministers as hirelings of Satan. Nor will they tell you about the sacred underwear they are wearing which, they believe, actually protects them.

They will be reluctant to tell you that Mormon leaders have taught that Jesus was conceived by way of a sexual relationship between God and Mary.
“…how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death: but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the god of Heaven” (Joseph F. Smith, Family Home Evening Manual, 1972, pg. 125)

They will be reluctant to tell you that they believe the bible has been corrupted throughout the centuries and cannot be trusted fully by itself.
“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph smith, pg.327)
“But the Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and recopied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that any two of them read alike.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, pg.213)

 

[rmcmullan]

The Church would never expect its members to believe blindly. Jesus came to be the proof, the historical fact, Word made Flesh. He left nothing to hide. All of his accounts are historical, archeologically or mass eye-witness accounts. Never were there doubts. Very few atheists or non-Christians would ever deny the existence of Jesus or the history of His life.

I really don’t have anything new to add than what I’ve already said. So maybe I can clarify a bit. Hope and faith need a target: the Catholic teachings, the Mormon teachings or the Christian teachings. Hope can lead to faith but you rarely achieve faith without hope. I would expect both Mormons and Catholics to have hope and faith in Christ. I do not expect Catholics to have hope in the Mormon teachings (except where they overlap), at least not the ones on this forum!

As a result, you look at well, not just Mormons, but probably everything from Protestants to Hindus without any kind of hope. It colors your perceptions greatly. As an example, I want to compare the current thread (not this one, but it’s currently active) on the contradictions in the various retellings of Joseph Smith’s vision of the Father and Son. As I would expect, Catholics are anxious to point out the smallest differences and claim that because of the contradiction, JS was [all the terrible things everyone says]. On the other hand, if you compare the four gospel accounts of the resurrection, a rather important point of Christianity, you see much more glaring inconsistencies. Yes, I took a Harmony of the Gospels class in college. But here you have hope and faith.

I am no archeologist and certianly not qualified to talk about either early Mormon or Christian scriptures. Frankly, I am amazed (suspicious?) that there are so many people here that are. So outside the four gospels, I do wonder what the historical accounts there are that would convince someone without hope that Jesus is the Christ?

 

[JesseW]

I’m doing a lot of reading these days out of Mormon materials (avoiding non- and anti-Mormon materials as much as possible, hoping to balance out my knowledge as I proceed). The Mormon materials have a beguiling aspect to them that helps me to understand how people can be drawn into the Mormon religion. Maybe this is nothing more than the effects of propaganda. I’m a pretty hard-sell anymore, but am still affected by reading the bios of important Mormons. These were/are some really impressive people.

Allweather,

I think you have approached your outreach to Latter Day Saints considerately and with love and respect. There are arguments that build brick walls, ones they hear over and over. There are also a lot of misconceptions that scream ignorance when certain approaches are tried. That you are going to the source is great, and not using the GODMAKERS or any of the other anti-Mormon materials to try to beat them into submission.

This has been a ministry of high priority for me for some time. I always try to keep 2 Timothy 2:14 in mind,

“Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.”

I have taught classes on Mormonism at our church. At first this caused quite a stir in my small community. But, you know what I did? Every Sunday afternoon I met the bishop of the local ward and two of their retired missionaries to discuss my material and make sure it was accurate. Was it awkward and scary? Yes. But it helped me engage them on a weekly basis for a few months. After a while they just said to keep teaching, they didn’t need to see the material anymore because they were convinced I was being fair.

Your fruits may not show for a long time, but planting seeds is as valuable to the service of the Lord as reaping the crop.

 

[Allweather]

Thanks, Jesse. This is a new tack for me after months of being fairly brainless about Mormonism, reading mostly anti-Mormon materials. This past Sunday at Mass I had such a conviction about this, that I’ve been cruel to many people by not looking at them as human beings who’re just as needy of God’s love as I am, and earnestly seeking it as Mormons. I beg their forgiveness. That doesn’t mean I like the religion one bit, LOL, but I’m going to try to love the people as much as our Lord does, which of course isn’t possible, but I think I’m supposed to try…

 

[Pjs2ejs]

McMullan, I am a little confused by your response and all of the hope and faith stuff. Hope and faith are characteristics of most religions, even cults. My faith is founded on the Gospels and the Tradition of the Church. My hope is that I will share a place in heaven with our Lord.

But we are digressing from the thread here. Please tell me all of the so-called inconsistencies in the four gospels. Sounds like you don’t trust them. And by the way, I am very interested in how you can trust the Book of Mormon since there is NO evidence backing it up.

You still ignore the facts of this thread. You push them aside by letting your feelings and your pride rule your faith. God would never expect us to believe in something that is make believe. From the garden until Revelations, God provided proof of His existence, proof of His plan with signs, miracles, and His Son. Apparently in the mid-1800s, God decided to reveal Himself and a “Grand Plan” to one person, through fictional history, and expect us to believe? I think not.

 

[Allweather]

As an example, I want to compare the current thread (not this one, but it’s currently active) on the contradictions in the various retellings of Joseph Smith’s vision of the Father and Son. As I would expect, Catholics are anxious to point out the smallest differences and claim that because of the contradiction, JS was [all the terrible things everyone says]. On the other hand, if you compare the four gospel accounts of the resurrection, a rather important point of Christianity, you see much more glaring inconsistencies. Yes, I took a Harmony of the Gospels class in college. But here you have hope and faith.

R, the obvious thing that pops out to me, and I think I mentioned this to Alma in the other thread though in a slightly different slant, is that with the Gospels, you’ve got four writers. Actually, there probably are more than four, since the writers and editors gathered material from various sources, mostly oral (such as the Blessed Virgin Mary). One should expect there to be minor variations in the accounts. In the case of Joseph and his visions, however, there is only the account of Joseph. There were no other witnesses. The apparent fact that his accounts varied considerably over the years between 1832 and 1844 suggests to the skeptical mind that he creatively elaborated as he went in order to make the Vision match the developing theology that was being shaped by ongoing revelations.

So outside the four gospels, I do wonder what the historical accounts there are that would convince someone **without hope **that Jesus is the Christ?

This probably varies person to person, though I’m not sure about the “without hope” part. A lot of people will give testimony to a witness of the Holy Spirit, which is similar to how LDS people claim to receive confirmation. Myself, I do get that burning in the bosom, but I also can see the historical evidence. The Catholic Church exists. If it had apostasized, it wouldn’t still exist. 2000 years is an awful long time for any institution to survive the turmoil that has beset the Catholic Church, I’m sure you’d agree. Plus, the consistency of doctrine. Even though there’ve been eras in which corruption affected the Church, it retained its doctrines, unpolluted.

But how do we KNOW that Jesus is the Christ? Probably about the same way Mormons know. We get confirmations in our hearts, and these are a precious gift of God. “For without faith it is impossible to please God; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

 

[pjn6444]

I came across this idea while looking over Mormon material. The Mormons refer to the time after the death of the Apostles as the great Apostasy. However, some parts of the Bible were written and the whole Canon of the Bible was assembled during that time. So how can they accept these to be true during the Great Apostasy. Or how can they call this time the great apostasy if the Bible was assembled then.

 

[rmcmullan]

Because it was done without the oversight of the Apostles.

 

[Allweather]

I came across this idea while looking over Mormon material. The Mormons refer to the time after the death of the Apostles as the great Apostasy. However, some parts of the Bible were written and the whole Canon of the Bible was assembled during that time. So how can they accept these to be true during the Great Apostasy. Or how can they call this time the great apostasy if the Bible was assembled then.

In my experience, which is by no means exhaustive, Mormons have a pretty low opinion of the Bible, probably for the reason you describe. They believe that it is corrupt, that parts are missing.

When “arguing” with Christians, the astute among them will limit their references mostly to the Bible. IMO this is because they want to give the appearance of leaning upon the Bible as a primary source. But amongst themselves, they rely a lot less on the Bible. This is easy to verify by reading Mormon materials, and see how the preponderance of reference is made to “modern scripture” rather than to the Bible.

 

[Allweather]

Because it was done without the oversight of the Apostles.

Many of the Apostles were directly and indirectly involved in the writing and assembling of Biblical materials during their lifetimes.

Obviously, since they lived normal lifespans up until their martyrdom or natural deaths, they did not live into the 4th century when it became necessary for the Church to designate the inspired writings. However, their successors, the bishops, were intimately involved in the process.

 

[alexaustralia]

On the other hand, if you compare the four gospel accounts of the resurrection, a rather important point of Christianity, you see much more glaring inconsistencies. Yes, I took a Harmony of the Gospels class in college. But here you have hope and faith.

I think what Mannyfit is trying to get at is that the BoM presents factual impossibilities rather than just mere inconsistencies. There are several ways one can explain away the inconsistencies between the Gospels (some more likely than others but in general all plausible).
The problem with the BoM is that in order for the author(s) to have written about honey bees, horses, iron and steel they had to live in a time where these existed in the Americas. And we know these were introduced by Europeans from 1400’s onwards (from memory Colombus discovered America in 1492 so has to be some time after that)
How else can one explain it… if one where to find in the Bible a passage that said “Joseph and Mary googled in the internet for a place to stay and all they found was a stable” then there is no way this happened in 0AC or 1000AC or 1960AC it had to occur late 1980’s onward. It is the same with the BoM…I can put all my faith that they googled it in 0AC but I would be totally wrong no matter how strong my faith would be in that particular belief.

If you have any eother plausible xplanations of how it is these things are described in the BoM please let us know.

Cheers,

Alex