Seeking a balanced description of Mormoninsm

[zerinus]

Absolutely! But that’s not where you should stop either. It is fruitful to have discussions from everyone whether or not you agree, and I totally agree that you should give weight to their comments. I would love to see you become Catholic of course, mainly because I know the joy and peace it brings me. But in order for you to understand what is involved in being Catholic, you should also know why people leave the Church. Mainly people leave the Church because they don’t fully understand Catholic teaching, but enough make them think they do. My sister for example. But I value my sister’s opinion even if she does hate the Church. So yes, by all means take it all in, but be careful not to stop searching, or all you’ll get is falsehoods.

Thank you. If you are prepared to apply the same criterion to your investigation of the LDS Church, I cannot find any fault with that at all. Good luck with your search!

zerinus

 

[psyche23]

Thank you. If you are prepared to apply the same criterion to your investigation of the LDS Church, I cannot find any fault with that at all. Good luck with your search!

zerinus

I wouldn’t have suggested it if I wasn’t willing to follow my own advice! First rule in psychology! No hypocrites!!!

 

[rpp]

Absolutely! But that’s not where you should stop either. It is fruitful to have discussions from everyone whether or not you agree, and I totally agree that you should give weight to their comments. I would love to see you become Catholic of course, mainly because I know the joy and peace it brings me. But in order for you to understand what is involved in being Catholic, you should also know why people leave the Church. Mainly people leave the Church because they don’t fully understand Catholic teaching, but enough make them think they do. My sister for example. But I value my sister’s opinion even if she does hate the Church. So yes, by all means take it all in, but be careful not to stop searching, or all you’ll get is falsehoods.

Thank you. If you are prepared to apply the same criterion to your investigation of the LDS Church, I cannot find any fault with that at all. Good luck with your search!

zerinus

I would like to point out that St. Thomas Aquinas organized his *Summa Theologica *in the form of Objection and Response. Essentially he described the faith as if responding to criticisms and objections. This is an effective way to learn.

Even scientists learn try to prove a theory by attempting to disprove it experimentally.

Good philosophy must be able to withstand and respond to criticism. Thus hearing the objections of dissidents and apostates as well as seeing the response to them by the faithful, is one of the best ways to get a complete and genuine understanding. After all, we all have doubts, different dobts to be sure, but doubts nevertheless. We need to be able to address and answer those doubts.

The Catholic Church has been doing that for nearly 2,000 years; and did it without changing doctrine or moral teachings. The Mormon Church has been doing this for a little less 180 years and has had some doctrinal and/or moral teachings changes (such as the teaching on polygamy).

 

[zerinus]

I guess what I meant was what does the Book of Mormon contain, What do you consider the Covenants to be and I’ve never heard of the Pearl of Great Price…

The Book of Mormon is the sacred history of the former inhabitants of ancient America, and revealed to Joseph Smith and miraculously translated into English by the gift and power of God. The Doctrine and Covenants is book of revelations received by Joseph Smith (and his successors) as he organized and established the Church of God on earth by the commandment of the Lord. The Pearl of Great Price is another sacred book we have that contains some of the other revelations that Joseph Smith had received. These three volumes together with the Bible form the scriptural canon of the LDS Church. You can see them online from the Church’s website here; or you can obtain a printed copy for free from your local LDS Church. These four books constitute what we refer to as the “standard works of the Church”.

I’d say there are probably a few people who disagree with that on these boards. I’ll certainly take that into consideration, but even some people who claim to be Mormons say that the religion is “individualistic”. So while I’m glad to have your opinion, popular opinion (at least on this thread) suggests otherwise. Of course I’ll continue to ask, but I know now where you stand and would like to see what others think.

In that case I would have to ask you to define for me what you mean by being “individualistic,” and in what way LDS fulfil that condition. Perhaps you can ask your friends who have told you that to clarify for us what they mean by it.

Is this prophet leader still with you to help you through when times change (which they most certainly will).

Yes! The LDS Church has always been led by true prophets and Apostles since it was organized. That is a standing institution in the Church. As old ones have passed away, new ones have been ordained to succeed them. That is how it was done in the early Christian church.

New problems and questions arise everyday which need answers. If you can not find the answers, who do you turn to? If you turn to your priests, they are fallible humans just like the rest of us.

The Church is led by prophets and Apostles who are able to communicate with God, and provide the Church with inspired counsel and direction which comes by revelation from the Lord to meet changing circumstances and new challenges that may arise in the Church or in the word. Prophets and Apostles are men, and like all men they are not infallible; but when they act in their capacity as prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church, the counsel that they give is inspired and comes form the Lord.

We have our Pope who has been blessed by God to help us though in matters of Faith and Morals.

The Pope is a good man. Most Popes in the history of the Catholic Church I am sure have been. But the Pope is not infallible either, and can make mistakes. He lacks one thing though. He lacks the priesthood authority to communicate directly with God, and guide the Church by revelation directly from God. That prerogative existed in the early Christian church; and now it has been restored in the LDS Church.

You also ask for specifics on interpretations of scriptures. The first one that comes to mind is when at the last supper Jesus says “This is my Body, This is the cup of my blood”. Many sects have interpreted this as a symbolic term and not literal. The Catholic Church has always maintained that this is just what Jesus says it is. This is our teaching and has never changed. Of course there are other examples, but this is all that pops into my head at the moment.

We too are among those “sects” (if you like!) who disagree with the Catholic Church’s stance on that. We think that there are valid scriptural reasons for not accepting the doctrine of transubstantiation.

If however, you were asking to give specifics on people breaking away from Mormon teaching, then I’m not qualified to give that answer.

Yes, that is in fact what I was referring to. Since you had made the accusation that relying on scripture alone for correct understanding of doctrine leads to “individualism,” and to people wondering off with their own private interpretations to form their own religions, the burden of proof is on you to show that such a thing has actually happened in the LDS Church. We believe that the way in which the LDS Church is run and organized prevents that from happening. It is up to you to demonstrate the opposite if that is what you believe.

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

I’m sure however that some other people on this forum could help though. Have you tried the Ask an Apologist section? It wouldn’t surprise me at all if there were some, but since I’m so ignorant on Mormon interpretation of scriptures, then I can’t help.

No, I don’t need any help with that. I already know the answer to that question! I said that in order to convince you that relying on the scriptures instead of on a catechism does not lead to “individualism,” nor to the breakup of the Church as you had claimed.

It’s okay to use it as a primary reference point, because it interprets a great deal of scripture to help us understand the meanings. If I were to go look up Leviticus with no one to guide me as to why those laws are still important, I would be clueless. The Catechism is a great way to be very concise and straightforward in our explanations of stuff. If we didn’t use it as a reference point, (primary, secondary or other) then what would it’s use be? Many of us are not scholars and have not gone to the Seminary to delve deeply into the Church’s teachings, so we go to what we know we can use and trust.

A Catechism is OK as a reference point for investigators and newcomers in the church who are still finding their way in it, and want something basic to get a handle on what the church teaches or believes; but as a standard reference point to officially and formally define the doctrine of the Church, it is not acceptable to us. We believe that role belongs to the scriptural canon of the Church.

It almost sounds like if you become baptised in the Mormon church, then you become infallible (at least when it comes to interpreting scriptures). I just don’t see how that can be the case if there are some people who claim to be Mormon have been baptised as such and disagree with you (or any other Mormon).

No, that is not what I am referring to. What I am referring to is what Paul was hoping for when he wrote:

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave 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:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

I am pleased to inform you that LDS to a large measure have arrived at that “unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,” so that they are no longer as “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine”. That has been made possible because we have had true “Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers” amongst us who have been called, ordained, and inspired of God to lead them as God would have them be; and by virtue of the gift of the Holy Ghost that has been in operation among them.

I’d say the exact same thing for Catholics. I believe the only reason some people disagree with Catholic doctrine is they they don’t fully understand it. Otherwise for the majority of Catholics (even the ones who are somewhat ignorant of the theology) have great uniformity.

I am glad to hear it. Nevertheless, I would inform you that I know that the Book of Mormon is true.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

This saddens me; my heart goes out to you.

Paul

Ummm, for what? It isn’t like anyone died here, more like I have found life.

 

[psyche23]

We have fundamental disagreements in belief, which is fine. What you take in as true or false and why you believe that. I firmly believe my Church to the the one true religion. I’m glad to see you’re as strong in what you believe as I’m strong in my own faith. It means you love Christ. Of course I’d love for you to join us, but just because you’re not Catholic doesn’t mean I won’t see you in heaven. I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you to whatever path God wants you on.

Of course there are many points which I’d love to discuss with you on your last post, but I think it just keeps getting too indepth and circular online. I could keep going back to my origional points, but that does no good. I might try to answer a few before I leave this particular post, but I’m probably not going to get all that into it. I can only argue a postition for so long. I’m glad we had this conversation though.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rbt Southwell;3167887:

So touched that lawsuits were filed against Prophet Smith.

If that was so, she would have not left the Church.

Paul

Hey, quit talking about me.

Paul G, nothing burned in my bosom but the desire to be propelled away from mormonism as far as possible. I had rocket shoes.

And comparing JS to the Apostles is about the most laughable and ridiculous thing ever.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As you say we have these writings because there has not been a break with the loss of our writen knowledge contained within our culture. All it takes is the loss of one generation to loose all that we know. This very thing happen to the Book of Mormon people.

Paul

Really?

What about things that didn’t exist pre-Columbian in the Americas? Were they lost in one generation?

OMG! Where did the iron and chariots go?!?!?

 

[zerinus]

cont’d.

“What would you do if the Bible and the Catechism disagreed? Perhaps you will say, they don’t! Well, we have reasons to disagree.”

Exactly what I would say. Took the words right out of my mouth. They don’t disagree because the Church is very careful what to put in the Catechism. If the Church has not said definitively on a particular subject, they say so and then give some tips on how to handle it. But it will not argue something that is not true. Just to reiterate, if the subject’s hazy, it either won’t be in there, or it will just say it’s hazy and why. If you have specifics you’d like to discuss, I’m more than happy to talk about it.

Well, I mentioned three in this post, when you first asked a similar question.

zerinus

 

[psyche23]

“The Pope is a good man. Most Popes in the history of the Catholic Church I am sure have been. But the Pope is not infallible either, and can make mistakes. He lacks one thing though. He lacks the priesthood authority to communicate directly with God, and guide the Church by revelation directly from God. That prerogative existed in the early Christian church; and now it has been restored in the LDS Church.”

As I’ve stated before. We believe the Pope to be infallible on matters of Faith and Morals. He might make mistakes because he is human, but not in those areas.

“Yes, that is in fact what I was referring to. Since you had made the accusation that relying on scripture alone for correct understanding of doctrine leads to “individualism,” and to people wondering off with their own private interpretations to form their own religions, the burden of proof is on you to show that such a thing has actually happened in the LDS Church. We believe that the way in which the LDS Church is run and organized prevents that from happening. It is up to you to demonstrate the opposite if that is what you believe.”

Just judging by the posts on this thread alone could suffice, as I’ve stated before. Several claimed Mormons have disagreed, so I think you’d have to take that up with them and whether or not you consider them to be true Mormons. I just used that as an example, though poor, shows there is Some disagreement.

 

[psyche23]

“A Catechism is OK as a reference point for investigators and newcomers in the church who are still finding their way in it, and want something basic to get a handle on what the church teaches or believes; but as a standard reference point to officially and formally define the doctrine of the Church, it is not acceptable to us. We believe that role belongs to the scriptural canon of the Church”

I think you missed my point…

"I am pleased to inform you that LDS to a large measure have arrived at that “unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,” so that they are no longer as “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine”. "

Glad to hear it. Still, I’d like to hear from all the others who claim to be Mormons which you reject to be such.

“That has been made possible because we have had true “Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers” amongst us who have been called, ordained, and inspired of God to lead them as God would have them be; and by virtue of the gift of the Holy Ghost that has been in operation among them”"

Again a matter of personal belief. I don’t believe your prophets to be true and your writing to be inerrant. So arguing this point is mute for me… sorry.

Ok, well thanks for the discussion. Good luck with your endeavors and I hope you’ll wish the same for me. I’ll continue to search for truth and I pray you’ll do likewise.

God bless!!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Zerinus, you assume the worst and take big leaps with something that isn’t there. I never said in my previous post that Mormon ex-Catholics are spouting hateful rhetoric. I was simply disagreeing with the other poster’s statement that ex-Mormon Catholics are doing so. I don’t see that at all. In general, they are providing excellent insight into their experiences in Mormonism, and are a wonderful source of information. Mormons seem to have a trained disposition to automatically dismiss such people without consideration of what they have to say. Anyone who says something contrary to LDS teaching, especially ex-members, are labeled “anti-Mormon,” or even worse “apostate.” (You are the biggest user of that word, one I don’t think I’ve seen any other Mormon use here because they have the good sense not to). This a defense mechanism whereby a person can automatically dismiss another without having to consider what they have to say instead of providing a reasoned, unemotional response.

Now if some ex-Mormons feel angry about how they were indoctrinated in the LDS church, I can certainly understand that, but I don’t see hateful attacks being put forth by them.

Actually, I believe that zerinus has put all mormon “apostates” on ignore.

finger in ears, lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

 

[zerinus]

You have not met my wife . . .

By the sound of things, I don’t think I would want to.

. . . who is a Catholic turned Mormon and who always spoke evil of the Catholic Church. You have not met my son’s in-laws who are Catholic turned Mormon who regularly do the same. You have not met many of the converts to Mormonism on my mission in Venezuela who were once Catholic. They often spoke evil of the Catholic Church. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

It is easy to bring such accusations without having any evidence to support it. I have produced evidence for my claims.

zerinus

 

[txangel]

I am looking for a description of Mormon doctrine? Preferably, this description would be in contrast to Catholic doctrine, and be a relatively high level summary, rather than a series of detailed treatises.

For example, I think that the LDS does not believe in the Trinity. Is that correct? What about the Divinity of Christ? baptism, communion of saints, etc.? And where does the obsession of genealogies come from?

I understand that the CDF under then Cardinal Ratzinger stated that Mormonism is not a Christian sect, but something else. What was the basis for that?

Please remember charity when posting.

Thank you all.

I suggest you get the book “Essentioal Catholic Survival Guide”. It has an awesome section dealing wtih various “religions” such as SDV’s, JW’s, Mormons, Fundamentalist. I just finished reading the section on Mormonism and JW’s. I must say it contains some of the best information I’ve ever read on either of these sects, regarding history, doctrines, etc. and how to talk to people of these sects. I believe you would be pleased with what you find.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, you assume the worst and take big leaps with something that isn’t there. I never said in my previous post that Mormon ex-Catholics are spouting hateful rhetoric.

This is what you had said:

And I’m not sure which ex-Catholics you’re talking about because there doesn’t seem to be many ex-Catholic Mormons posting here. If there are, they don’t seem to be identifying themselves as such.

This belies what you are saying now.

zerinus

 

[rpp]

This is what you had said:

This belies what you are saying now.

zerinus

I look at what you quoted and I do not see that Chris-WA stated or even implied that Mormons who had converted from the Catholic Church were saying hateful things. He simply said that he did not see any ex-Catholic Mormons posting here.

Though I myself have yet to see anyone who converted from the Catholic Church to another denomination or, in the case of Mormonism, another religion, not have very critical things to say about the Catholic Church. I mean, they they were so happy as Catholics, why did they convert?

But getting back, this thread is not about Catholic converts to Mormonism, but rather about the Mormon Church proclaims and teaches. This thread has been fairly civil thus far, let’s keep it that way.

 

[zerinus]

We have fundamental disagreements in belief, which is fine. What you take in as true or false and why you believe that. I firmly believe my Church to the the one true religion. I’m glad to see you’re as strong in what you believe as I’m strong in my own faith. It means you love Christ. Of course I’d love for you to join us, but just because you’re not Catholic doesn’t mean I won’t see you in heaven. I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you to whatever path God wants you on.

Of course there are many points which I’d love to discuss with you on your last post, but I think it just keeps getting too indepth and circular online. I could keep going back to my origional points, but that does no good. I might try to answer a few before I leave this particular post, but I’m probably not going to get all that into it. I can only argue a postition for so long. I’m glad we had this conversation though.

Thank you. I am glad too to have had the privilege of discussing these things with you too. I agree that such discussions can become a bit hectic online after a while, and at some point a more direct person to person conversation would become more beneficial. Good luck with your search.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Just judging by the posts on this thread alone could suffice, as I’ve stated before. Several claimed Mormons have disagreed, so I think you’d have to take that up with them and whether or not you consider them to be true Mormons. I just used that as an example, though poor, shows there is Some disagreement.

Two points here: Firstly, as I had already explained, Mormons have minds of their own, and are encouraged to think for themselves, and they may disagree. We are not zombies! Don’t Catholics disagree? But what you had been referring to was something different. Secondly, this is not really the right place to judge Mormons. This is the place for oddballs! If you really want to know what Mormons are like, your best bet would be to visit your local LDS ward one Sunday, interact and socialize with the members, talk to the bishop and other local ward leaders, ask questions from them if you have any, attend their various meetings on the Sunday, and find out for yourself what they are like.

Again a matter of personal belief. I don’t believe your prophets to be true and your writing to be inerrant. So arguing this point is mute for me… sorry.

That may be so, and you are entitled to your opinion. I was merely explaining things to you from my own (and from a Mormon) perspective.

Ok, well thanks for the discussion. Good luck with your endeavors and I hope you’ll wish the same for me. I’ll continue to search for truth and I pray you’ll do likewise.

God bless!!!

I most certainly do! Good luck to you too with your search, and may God bless you too!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Actually, I believe that zerinus has put all mormon “apostates” on ignore.

finger in ears, lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

You figured that one right. I do, however, occasionally reply to some of them; but only on my own terms, not on their terms!

zerinus