Views on Mormonism?

[ParkerD]

I haven’t been on for awhile since my daughter baptized into the mormon faith.I would really appreciate it if an ex-mormon would answer my questions that I may have, truthfully. I know I can go on web sites but I don’t know what to believe. I have read your post on marriage. When I asked my daughter, she could not tell me the answer to the question about the sealing. She said that she would have to go to the bishop for those answers.

(1) She also said that the majority of converted mormons were catholic. Why???
(2) I would also like to know what does the mormon faith promise these converts that the catholic faith does not??
(3) She started off by living with a mormon family, the next thing we knew was that she was being baptized. Did they guilt her into this because they opened their home to her. The reason for the hospitality was because she would be closer to work.
(4) Now that she has done her conversion, it seemed that they couldn’t wait for her to get an apartment of her own.
(5) Also, we were told that now that she is a mormon, she will not be single for long. They want single mormons for be married asap. Because of this, she now has to go to “church” a half an hour to forty five minutes away to a mormon church for singles.

(6) I am so confused. I would ask her these questions but I’m sure she would sugar coat it.

I apologize if I’m not posting this where it should be. Perhaps someone can direct me for the next time.

Have a blessed day and a blessed Thanksgiving.

P.S. if there is anything else that I should know about this faith, feel free to tell me all.

Michelle G 55,

Happy Thanksgiving to you also, and to your family.

I have five daughters, so I at least have a perspective about being a parent of daughters to try and answer some of your questions. (Only one married for now–one pretty anxious to be, and two of age but “not ready for marriage”).

Here are brief responses:

1. Since it appears you may be living in Pennsylvania which has a high Catholic membership, that would be the logical statistical reason. (I noticed your profile that showed a community college to figure that out.)
2. One can assume she felt a spiritual sense of peace in her decision and felt the teachings matched what she desired for her life. She would have noticed a strong emphasis on a personal relationship with the Savior, Jesus Christ, and on making and keeping covenants with Him.
3. She may have liked their close family relationships, perhaps? (It would be doubtful that they presented a “guilt trip”, but they no doubt were glad to answer her questions.)
4. Young LDS adults are encouraged to become independent if possible for their own growth, if they can afford that.
5. It would have been left as her choice whether to attend a “singles ward” or a “family ward”, but often the “singles ward” seems more appealing when it is a reasonable distance away. She shouldn’t feel any obligation to attend there as compared with the family ward nearer where she lives.
6. It would be reasonable to have an open conversation, but one would understand your hesitation about it. 'Hope it goes well.

May you, also, have a blessed day.

 

[Miriam1947]

In old days, it would be grounds for ex-communication.

In today’s time, it’s obviously a Mortal Sin and they’ve separated themselves from God. Not a good present state for sure.

Actually if you participate in an abortion you have excommunicated yourself. Confession is absolutely necessary in order to receive communion.

Remember the nurse in Arizona (I think it was there) who participated in an abortion? She excommunicated herself.

 

[blueadept]

Apparently, the LDS are not the only ones who have seen some changes in their teachings!

That’s a form of excommunication, so I guess I don’t quite agree.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I haven’t been on for awhile since my daughter baptized into the mormon faith.I would really appreciate it if an ex-mormon would answer my questions that I may have, truthfully. I know I can go on web sites but I don’t know what to believe. I have read your post on marriage. When I asked my daughter, she could not tell me the answer to the question about the sealing. She said that she would have to go to the bishop for those answers. She also said that the majority of converted mormons were catholic. Why???
I would also like to know what does the mormon faith promise these converts that the catholic faith does not?? She started off by living with a mormon family, the next thing we knew was that she was being baptized. Did they guilt her into this because they opened their home to her. The reason for the hospitality was because she would be closer to work. Now that she has done her conversion, it seemed that they couldn’t wait for her to get an apartment of her own. Also, we were told that now that she is a mormon, she will not be single for long. They want single mormons for be married asap. Because of this, she now has to go to “church” a half an hour to forty five minutes away to a mormon church for singles.

I am so confused. I would ask her these questions but I’m sure she would sugar coat it.

I apologize if I’m not posting this where it should be. Perhaps someone can direct me for the next time.

Have a blessed day and a blessed Thanksgiving.

P.S. if there is anything else that I should know about this faith, feel free to tell me all.

Mormons target non-Mormons, especially it seems, Catholics.

I have lived in Utah my whole life, was raised LDS. I raised my daughter as an atheist and fiercely protected her from Mormons and Mormonism. My Mormon family constantly target her. Mormons she has works with, have targeted her. This is what Mormons do, work on young people who are vulnerable, still forming.

Your daughter was targeted before she moved in with this family. My family has done the same, expressed how wonderful it would be for young people to move to Utah so that they could be converted, and the families have not even considered a move.

Unfortunately, you didn’t know she was being preyed on, because the Mormons certainly aren’t going to be honest with you and tell you they are going to try to convert your daughter while she is living in their home.

As for sealing, Mormons think they have a special idea where a temple ceremony will seal families so they can be together in heaven. They teach each other that everyone else believes families are not together in heaven, which is of course just one of the deceptions that Mormons foist on each other.

A sealing is a marriage ceremony, that you will not be invited to witness because you are not a Mormon. Ironic, isn’t it, they pretend this ceremony is all about family while excluding family from participating. You should prepare yourself for this heartbreak now. You will not be present at your daughter’s wedding, you will be invited to wait outside a Mormon temple to greet the newlyweds when they exit.

 

[KathleenGee]

I, too, had the sense the girl was already targeted when they invited her into her home…

It is very disturbing, even frightening to what they are doing…

How would the Mormons feel if we were going about targeting their children, offering them to stay in our home so we could make them Catholic?..

 

[blueadept]

Stories like Michelles is unfortunately common with LDS families. In the 1970’s, my priest chose to go to the University of Utah to avoid the war protests and lived with a nice LDS family. His LDS baptism didn’t feel right for him and it took a Protestant friend to offer a scripture passage that helped him to leave the situation. Three years ago, I had a foreign exchange student who was originally placed with a LDS family. She was freaked out within 4 days of arriving. When she arrived, the family knelt down to pray and the father gave her a fatherly blessing and didn’t explain what he was doing. (She felt like just joined the church.) The next day, she had the 3 hr block of meetings and then went to the 1st day of seminary before going to school. She then reviewed all her notes from the family to see if they ever mentioned the importance of church for them and saw nothing. Her coordinator (my LDS step-daughter) had her placed in another family by Wednesday. It wasn’t until she joined my family after Christmas before I could explain what all happened and that she didn’t really join another church. Now, a condition for foreign-exchange students, they aren’t suppose to convert while visiting their host family. But I’m aware of a couple of them converting once they returned home.

LDS are best known for their missionary efforts. No one should be surprised when they are successful.

 

[zaffiroborant]

What do the Catholics do to a member who participates in an Abortion?
blueadept;8603679:

In old days, it would be grounds for ex-communication.

In today’s time, it’s obviously a Mortal Sin and they’ve separated themselves from God. Not a good present state for sure.

It is still grounds for excommunication.

Today, Canon 1398 of the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law reads: “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” The word “actually” indicates that the abortion must have been successful for the penalty to occur; the mere intent to have an abortion is not sufficient.

That the penalty is latae sententiae means it is automatic, and hence there is no need for an official decree. Most excommunications, by way of contrast, have to be proclaimed by church authorities in order to take effect; these are called ferendae sententiae. There are seven acts in canon law that trigger latae sententiae excommunication. Aside from abortion, they are: violence against the pope; sacrilege such as throwing away a consecrated host; absolving a person with whom one has sinned against the sixth commandment; consecrating a bishop without authorization; violating the seal of confession; and apostasy, heresy or schism.

Canon 1329 specifies that accomplices to an act that triggers a latae sententiae excommunication are also subject to the same penalty if “without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed.” Canonists believe such accomplices include the doctor and nurses who perform the procedure, as well as friends or family (such as the husband or boyfriend) who cooperate in a direct fashion, such as paying for the abortion or driving to the clinic.

You can read the full article from NCR here

 

[zaffiroborant]

Stories like Michelles is unfortunately common with LDS families. In the 1970’s, my priest chose to go to the University of Utah to avoid the war protests and lived with a nice LDS family. His LDS baptism didn’t feel right for him and it took a Protestant friend to offer a scripture passage that helped him to leave the situation. Three years ago, I had a foreign exchange student who was originally placed with a LDS family. She was freaked out within 4 days of arriving. When she arrived, the family knelt down to pray and the father gave her a fatherly blessing and didn’t explain what he was doing. (She felt like just joined the church.) The next day, she had the 3 hr block of meetings and then went to the 1st day of seminary before going to school. She then reviewed all her notes from the family to see if they ever mentioned the importance of church for them and saw nothing. Her coordinator (my LDS step-daughter) had her placed in another family by Wednesday. It wasn’t until she joined my family after Christmas before I could explain what all happened and that she didn’t really join another church. Now, a condition for foreign-exchange students, they aren’t suppose to convert while visiting their host family. But I’m aware of a couple of them converting once they returned home.

LDS are best known for their missionary efforts. No one should be surprised when they are successful.

What a horrid way to treat a guest in your home. LDS have absolutely no respect for non LDS parents, working to convert their children surreptitiously. Ugly ugly behavior operating behind other parents backs feigning respect for them.

 

[mtolympus]

That’s a form of excommunication, so I guess I don’t quite agree.

“Today, Canon 1398 of the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law reads: “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” The word “actually” indicates that the abortion must have been successful for the penalty to occur; the mere intent to have an abortion is not sufficient.”

“The 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law” means there was a change. I am not criticising the Catholic Church for making a change; only pointing out that the LDS is not the only organization that makes changes occasionally.

 

[zaffiroborant]

“Today, Canon 1398 of the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law reads: “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” The word “actually” indicates that the abortion must have been successful for the penalty to occur; the mere intent to have an abortion is not sufficient.”

“The 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law” means there was a change. I am not criticising the Catholic Church for making a change; only pointing out that the LDS is not the only organization that makes changes occasionally.

In response to the request of the bishops at the First Vatican Council,[1] Pope Pius X ordered that work begin on reducing these diverse documents into a single code, presenting the normative portion in the form of systematic short canons shorn of the preliminary considerations (“Whereas…”) and omitting those parts that had been superseded by later developments.

The code was promulgated on 27 May 1917 as the Code of Canon Law (Latin: Codex Iuris Canonici) by his successor, Pope Benedict XV, who set 19 May 1918 as the date on which it came into force.[2] For the most part, it applied only to the Latin Church except when “it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental”,[3] such as the effects of baptism (canon 87)

.

1917 Code of Canon Law also imposed latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Ordinary for the crime of abortion (CIC, c. 2350). Similarly, those who procured actual abortion are also irregular for Ordination. However, according to this Code the abortion was deliberate ejection of an immature foetus before it is viable outside mother’s womb.

No change from when Canon Law was first codified.

 

[frank_maritano]

I don’t bash other religions or cogregations. That being said, I have for a long time wondered why the Mormons/LDS keep geneological records on non-mormons? It is a pretty decent source of info for those interested in geneology though.

I’d appreciate any answers.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Michelle G55,

While I am not an ex-Mormon, I think the reason you are finding Catholics leaving the faith (some are on this thread) is inadequate education in the faith. This poor to non-existant cathecesis is the root cause of many problems. People, who at least in theory should know better, incorrectly claim something to be a Catholic doctrine,when it is just the reverse. And non-Catholics hear this fool and because they do not know better simply go off in the wrong direction. But, this does not address all of the issues.

While this may address the numerical majority of those who have left, there have been a few who were given an excellent education in the faith - and simply lost their belief in Christ and His Church.

My wife and I will keep your daughter in our prayers.

God bless

I haven’t been on for awhile since my daughter baptized into the mormon faith.I would really appreciate it if an ex-mormon would answer my questions that I may have, truthfully. I know I can go on web sites but I don’t know what to believe. I have read your post on marriage. When I asked my daughter, she could not tell me the answer to the question about the sealing. She said that she would have to go to the bishop for those answers. She also said that the majority of converted mormons were catholic. Why???
I would also like to know what does the mormon faith promise these converts that the catholic faith does not?? She started off by living with a mormon family, the next thing we knew was that she was being baptized. Did they guilt her into this because they opened their home to her. The reason for the hospitality was because she would be closer to work. Now that she has done her conversion, it seemed that they couldn’t wait for her to get an apartment of her own. Also, we were told that now that she is a mormon, she will not be single for long. They want single mormons for be married asap. Because of this, she now has to go to “church” a half an hour to forty five minutes away to a mormon church for singles.

I am so confused. I would ask her these questions but I’m sure she would sugar coat it.

I apologize if I’m not posting this where it should be. Perhaps someone can direct me for the next time.

Have a blessed day and a blessed Thanksgiving.

P.S. if there is anything else that I should know about this faith, feel free to tell me all.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

Try to keep the hysteronics under control… Standing by a poor post is about all that is left to do. As you will recall earlier there were real concerns about shifting doctrines to match whatever the world view was at the time. As I recall the term ‘bait and switch’ was used because these doctrines are all over the place…

No one was addressing ‘burning at the stake’ - so where do you come up with this response? There are two issues that you have somehow managed to ignore … so let me bring them into sharp relief:

1.) The idea that someone MAY lose church membership was the focus of my comment. In the Catholic Church those that receive, participate, encourage, perform, vote for or other-wise encourage abortion ARE out of the Church through excommunication. There is no doubt as to the consequence of their gravely sinful action.

2.) The LDS group does not clearly condem abortions from pregnancies that resulted from rape or incest or for those whit a possible birth defect. So, we have this ‘gift of God’ that can be trashed if you so choose. As I see it - this is simply an inconsistent and illogical position to hold.

Now, it you are going to make a post, then watch it be piced apart because of its obvious inconsistency or objective inadequacy - don’t complain about those who find fault in your work. Just clean up your act. As I see it, your previous response not only fell short of the mark, but was deceptive because it left out so much. Context is very important.

God bless

Hey blueadept,
This thread isn’t on Abortion. I qucikly answered an offshoot question AND I LINKED to my source material. I stand by my original post. Naturally, If I had known it would turn into an inquisition, I would have either not replied, or done so in greater depth…

tqualey,
Since burning at the stake is no longer a viable religious reprimand, what is left but being kicked out of your Church? What do the Catholics do to a member who participates in an Abortion?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Zaffiroborant,

And, don’t forget those elected officials and jurists who through their own choice have promoted and voted for abortions.

God bless

It is still grounds for excommunication.

You can read the full article from NCR here

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mtolympus,

I think you have a misconception about the rules and regulations of the Catholic Church. Yes, some thing do not change - like abortion being view as the murder of innocent life. Other things have changed - like Catholics can eat meat on Friday (but, note, there is still the obligation for all to do penance). Now, contrast this with the LDS group allowing abortions for rape, incest or birth defects.

Maybe you would be surprised at how long this condemnation has been going on. Here is a link you may find of interest: catholic.com/tracts/abortion

God bless

“Today, Canon 1398 of the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law reads: “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” The word “actually” indicates that the abortion must have been successful for the penalty to occur; the mere intent to have an abortion is not sufficient.”

“The 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law” means there was a change. I am not criticising the Catholic Church for making a change; only pointing out that the LDS is not the only organization that makes changes occasionally.

 

[Miriam1947]

I don’t bash other religions or cogregations. That being said, I have for a long time wondered why the Mormons/LDS keep geneological records on non-mormons? It is a pretty decent source of info for those interested in geneology though.

I’d appreciate any answers.

So they can baptize your ancestors into the Mormon faith.

 

[Tony888]

After being thoroughly hounded on the LDS position on aboriton, I was shocked to discover it’s also OK with Catholics “to save a mother’s life” Ohh the hypocrisy (or ignorance) of some posters here, insinuating they are better because they never support abortion.

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
•That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
•That the immediate effect be good in itself;
•That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
•That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child.

 

[Stephen168]

After being thoroughly hounded on the LDS position on aboriton, I was shocked to discover it’s also OK with Catholics “to save a mother’s life” Ohh the hypocrisy (or ignorance) of some posters here, insinuating they are better because they never support abortion.

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

You are wrong so there is no hypocrisy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

Apparently, you are still unable to make the distinction between what is explained in this link and the position of the LDS alloweing for an abortion for rape, incest and birth defect. it would appear tome that the real hypocrisy and ignoance lies in the intent of your post.

Here is the operative section, which I would encourage you to compare with the the LDS document and see the radical difference:

**However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

•That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
•That the immediate effect be good in itself;
•That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
•That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life. Of course provision must be made for the child’s spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.**

God bless

After being thoroughly hounded on the LDS position on aboriton, I was shocked to discover it’s also OK with Catholics “to save a mother’s life” Ohh the hypocrisy (or ignorance) of some posters here, insinuating they are better because they never support abortion.

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

 

[KathleenGee]

Tony,

Reading your reference, it is very clear the Church upholds the life of mother and child.

The basic issues is a miscarriage vs a rupture.

What we are looking at is a pathological condition. Some women have been able to carry a child up to 6 months. There was a first successful operation early in the last century where the child was successfully transferred to the mother’s womb, and such surgeries followed…however, the children lived up to only 6 to 12 years old, implying again a condition of pathology.

A reference providing a contextual, comprehensive moral and scientific witness to the Catholic Church and her moral theologians’ great effort in collaborating with medical science, upholding the inherent sacredness of human life is given here.

www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57