The Allure of Mormonism-Get Under the Surface

[Brandon_Cal]

LivingWaters,

I really enjoyed your blog post. Thank you for sharing with us! I look forward to its sequel. As a Latter-day Saint I’ve shared many of the same (erroneous) objections to Catholicism that Shuster has (at least as they’ve been articulated in your synopsis of the book). “Vain repetition”, “God as three beings that aren’t really three beings”, etc. were all part of the caricature of Catholicism I was endowed with as a child, which I most unfortunately wasn’t disabused of until my mission to a heavily Catholic country. I was blessed to meet a number of very knowledgeable, active Catholics who corrected my assumptions and in the end Catholicism started to seem less weird. I find it hard to believe that such died-in-the-wool Catholics could succumb to such false notions of Catholicism if even I, a dumb 20 year old Mormon missionary, could eventually understand it.

I once served as an Institute instructor in La Jolla, California (primarily for UCSD students). Embarrassed that many young LDS under my care even in the late 20th century far removed from the general anti-Catholicism that I grew up with in the 50s and 60s were regurgitating the same platitudes, I arranged for a mutual weekend activity with the Newman Center on campus in order for us to share our understandings of our own religions with one another. Even these Catholic college students were able to explain the Trinity and the Communion of Saints in a rather straight forward manner (using many of the same analogies you used in your blog). How is it that undergraduates could get it but these ex-Catholics with such outstanding theological pedigrees don’t?

 

[TexanKnight]

LivingWaters,

I really enjoyed your blog post. Thank you for sharing with us! I look forward to its sequel. As a Latter-day Saint I’ve shared many of the same (erroneous) objections to Catholicism that Shuster has (at least as they’ve been articulated in your synopsis of the book). “Vain repetition”, “God as three beings that aren’t really three beings”, etc. were all part of the caricature of Catholicism I was endowed with as a child, which I most unfortunately wasn’t disabused of until my mission to a heavily Catholic country. I was blessed to meet a number of very knowledgeable, active Catholics who corrected my assumptions and in the end Catholicism started to seem less weird. I find it hard to believe that such died-in-the-wool Catholics could succumb to such false notions of Catholicism if even I, a dumb 20 year old Mormon missionary, could eventually understand it.

I once served as an Institute instructor in La Jolla, California (primarily for UCSD students). Embarrassed that many young LDS under my care even in the late 20th century far removed from the general anti-Catholicism that I grew up with in the 50s and 60s were regurgitating the same platitudes, I arranged for a mutual weekend activity with the Newman Center on campus in order for us to share our understandings of our own religions with one another. Even these Catholic college students were able to explain the Trinity and the Communion of Saints in a rather straight forward manner (using many of the same analogies you used in your blog). How is it that undergraduates could get it but these ex-Catholics with such outstanding theological pedigrees don’t?

it is not surprising that Mormons are so anti-Catholic. Hatred and demonizing of catholics is deeply imbedded into lds cuture

 

[LivingWaters7]

LivingWaters,

I really enjoyed your blog post. Thank you for sharing with us! I look forward to its sequel. As a Latter-day Saint I’ve shared many of the same (erroneous) objections to Catholicism that Shuster has (at least as they’ve been articulated in your synopsis of the book). “Vain repetition”, “God as three beings that aren’t really three beings”, etc. were all part of the caricature of Catholicism I was endowed with as a child, which I most unfortunately wasn’t disabused of until my mission to a heavily Catholic country. I was blessed to meet a number of very knowledgeable, active Catholics who corrected my assumptions and in the end Catholicism started to seem less weird. I find it hard to believe that such died-in-the-wool Catholics could succumb to such false notions of Catholicism if even I, a dumb 20 year old Mormon missionary, could eventually understand it.

I once served as an Institute instructor in La Jolla, California (primarily for UCSD students). Embarrassed that many young LDS under my care even in the late 20th century far removed from the general anti-Catholicism that I grew up with in the 50s and 60s were regurgitating the same platitudes, I arranged for a mutual weekend activity with the Newman Center on campus in order for us to share our understandings of our own religions with one another. Even these Catholic college students were able to explain the Trinity and the Communion of Saints in a rather straight forward manner (using many of the same analogies you used in your blog). How is it that undergraduates could get it but these ex-Catholics with such outstanding theological pedigrees don’t?

Indeed. Now, I do think that there are many poorly catechized Catholics that don’t understand their own beliefs (the same goes for members of any religion), so when they encounter Mormonism, they may think it provides something that is missing from Catholicism, when really, in at least some cases (IMO, revelation, temples, apostolic authority, prophets, etc), that thing is found in Catholicism, though in a different way (and again, IMO, a way that is not only consistent with what the New Testament and ancient Christians believed, but also in continuity with Catholicism’s Jewish heritage). These poorly catechized Catholics may not understand what Catholicism means when it claims that “Revelation ended”, hence we get straw man arguments like Shuster’s, claiming that Catholics believe that God no longer speaks, the Heavens are closed, God is the great “I was”, etc. Further, many Catholics do not understand what the basic definition of the Trinity is (they don’t know that “nature” is what is meant by “substance”, or that the Persons are distinct from each other, as is clearly stated in the Catechism), and come up with Modalistic understandings, “three beings not really three beings”, etc). This is very common.

But it really amuses me that Shuster attempts to present himself and his wife as former knowledgeable Catholics, when his own writing demonstrates that that is not an accurate description. Even if he claims that this is what actual Catholics had told or taught him, I’m amazed that he didn’t do his own independent research. He cites the Catechism, but seems to have not actually read it, nor understood it (for example, in the “Creation” chapter, he says “The Catechism of the Catholic Church outlines the doctrine of creation as being carried out by the word of God being facilitated by the Holy Trinity. This coordination between the Holy Trinity and the word of God…”. Nowhere does the Catechism actually say anything about coordination between the Word of God and the Trinity, or that the creation was done by the Word of God facilitated by the Holy Trinity. That doesn’t even make sense! The “word of God” is God the Son, Jesus Christ, and He is a member of the Trinity, not something separate from the Trinity.)

Individual Catholics can claim what they want, just like individual LDS can claim what they want. But if you’re critiquing the beliefs of a faith, it’s best to critique what they actually believe, and not what someone told you, or at least check to make sure that what you’re told is the actual belief.

 

[LivingWaters7]

This from the Foreword makes me laugh:

"The skeptical reader might ask with some alarm, ‘Angels in this day? Visions, revelations, and miracles anew? Spiritual experiences such as those enjoyed by the ancient Saints-now, in our own time?’"

If the reader is Catholic, they’d probably think “uh, we have all of those, and have had them for 2000 years”.

I also like that he brings up his wife’s undergraduate degree in Catholic theology from a “prestigious”, “well-known and respected” Catholic university, the University of Saint Thomas. Well, not to discount her education, but I went to Georgetown, and I’d venture to guess that most people have heard of Georgetown, Boston College, Notre Dame, and maybe even Steubenville and Catholic University of America. I never heard of University of St. Thomas in Texas, and I’m sure most haven’t. I doubt that when people think of a prestigious Catholic university, they think of that school. And of course, I’m not sure how her degree contributed to this book, since, as we know, there are multiple errors in the presentation of authentic (and not “he told me so”) Catholic doctrine and practice.

 

[Miriam1947]

Well that book sounds awful. Yikes. He doesn’t have a clue from what I read here.

I might get it from the library on a day when I need a good laugh.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

This from the Foreword makes me laugh:

"The skeptical reader might ask with some alarm, ‘Angels in this day? Visions, revelations, and miracles anew? Spiritual experiences such as those enjoyed by the ancient Saints-now, in our own time?’"

If the reader is Catholic, they’d probably think “uh, we have all of those, and have had them for 2000 years”.

I also like that he brings up his wife’s undergraduate degree in Catholic theology from a “prestigious”, “well-known and respected” Catholic university, the University of Saint Thomas. Well, not to discount her education, but I went to Georgetown, and I’d venture to guess that most people have heard of Georgetown, Boston College, Notre Dame, and maybe even Steubenville and Catholic University of America. I never heard of University of St. Thomas in Texas, and I’m sure most haven’t. I doubt that when people think of a prestigious Catholic university, they think of that school. And of course, I’m not sure how her degree contributed to this book, since, as we know, there are multiple errors in the presentation of authentic (and not “he told me so”) Catholic doctrine and practice.

Did Shuster’s wife coauthor the book or is he merely riding her coattails?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Did Shuster’s wife coauthor the book or is he merely riding her coattails?

He’s mostly riding her coattails. He’s listed as the author. Her conversion story is shared in the first person, so she wrote that part. Other than that, he refers to her thoughts on certain things, her background, etc.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I definately emphasis the family and community bit. Let’s face it, many of us attend parishes where we don’t know anyones name, that offer NO activities outside of Mass for parishoners to engage in, and have no families of our own. The happiness of the Mormon community can look almost painfully appealing.

Ain’t that the truth. Why can’t some of them at least have pot lucks?