Where Have All The Apostates And Anti-Mormons Gone?

[hosemonkey]

To be honest, the more I hang out here, the more I am convinced that the Catholic church could NOT be the true church. The only prosletizing that happens around here is negative. Hose?

You need to find someplace else to hang out. You and the other mormons have made no case for mormonism, in fact you have harmed your case irrepairably.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

To be honest, the more I hang out here, the more I am convinced that the Catholic church could NOT be the true church. The only prosletizing that happens around here is negative. Hose?

Oh, be honest and tell the truth, which is covered by one of the commandments. Are Mormons here for the purposes of proseltizing Catholics?

 

[dzheremi]

Is it typical of Mormons to be persuaded or disuaded from accepting religious doctrine based on the behavior of people on the internet? Because that’s what I thought we were talking about here: doctrine, not whether or not people are “positive” or not. A true message stands on it own truth borne of internal cohesion, regardless of who is telling it.

 

[why_me]

You need to find someplace else to hang out. You and the other mormons have made no case for mormonism, in fact you have harmed your case irrepairably.

No person can make a case for any religion. Religion by and large depends on faith of the believing individual. No case can be made for god that is based on evidence. Mormons do make a good case for why they believe what they believe.

Now of course, there are many nay sayers out there among the non mormon community but it has always been that way. The fact is that most antimormon arguments already existed from the early 19th century. There is very little new out there in my opinion.

But the more strident antimormons on this board do not make a good example for catholicm.

 

[why_me]

Is it typical of Mormons to be persuaded or disuaded from accepting religious doctrine based on the behavior of people on the internet? Because that’s what I thought we were talking about here: doctrine, not whether or not people are “positive” or not. A true message stands on it own truth borne of internal cohesion, regardless of who is telling it.

Not really. If antimormon catholics come across as aggressive and ‘unchristlike’ that will reflect on their catholicism and the faith they represent.

Now the interent does have abusive and aggresive people. In fact, I would say that many are abusive and agressive because it is easy to do so. No one can see their faces and certainly when they post their abuse, they can not see the abused. Thus, the human element is taking away. Now I would think that most internet abusive people are probably average jane’s and joe’s and vert nice people in real life.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Is it typical of Mormons to be persuaded or disuaded from accepting religious doctrine based on the behavior of people on the internet? Because that’s what I thought we were talking about here: doctrine, not whether or not people are “positive” or not. A true message stands on it own truth borne of internal cohesion, regardless of who is telling it.

It is typical for Mormons to believe that former Mormons left that religion because they were offended. I have always wondered if this is because they themselves have been offended, and nearly left, or what. But here it seems a Mormon is using it as an excuse to find fault with Catholicism.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree with most of that, why me, but my point was: Are we discussing doctrine or not? If it’s about being nice, well…anyone can be nice. If it’s about sticking to our dogmatic guns, then we are bound to disagree. Many here (myself included, I’m sure) could disagree in nicer ways, but at the end of the day that central disagreement will still be there. So I’m afraid I can’t even honestly apologize for disagreeing with Mormon doctrine (such as the belief that we can become gods), let alone be “positive” while disagreeing with it. I am “anti-Mormon”, as zerinus would put it, not because I have it out for Mormonism specifically, but because I can’t agree with its doctrine.

And if we’re not talking about doctrine, then there’s no need to have threads like this. I have met many Mormons in my life and they’ve all been very nice. Granted, they’ve all come to me in an effort to convert me, so I don’t necessarily even know if their nice attitudes were genuine or not, but for me at least, it’s not a personal thing, as it seems to be for some on here (most likely for good reasons, in the case of the ex-Mormons).

 

[why_me]

It is typical for Mormons to believe that former Mormons left that religion because they were offended. I have always wondered if this is because they themselves have been offended, and nearly left, or what. But here it seems a Mormon is using it as an excuse to find fault with Catholicism.

I remember the good ol’ days when most people would go inactive because they were offended by someone. It was rather common. I don’t remember people becoming inactive because of doctrine. And so, mormon ‘typicalness’ comes from experience. Now, these days, people can leave because of doctrinal issues. And that is now widely known too since more of those cases are springing up.

 

[why_me]

I agree with most of that, why me, but my point was: Are we discussing doctrine or not? If it’s about being nice, well…anyone can be nice. If it’s about sticking to our dogmatic guns, then we are bound to disagree. Many here (myself included, I’m sure) could disagree in nicer ways, but at the end of the day that central disagreement will still be there. So I’m afraid I can’t even honestly apologize for disagreeing with Mormon doctrine (such as the belief that we can become gods), let alone be “positive” while disagreeing with it. I am “anti-Mormon”, as zerinus would put it, not because I have it out for Mormonism specifically, but because I can’t agree with its doctrine.

And if we’re not talking about doctrine, then there’s no need to have threads like this. I have met many Mormons in my life and they’ve all been very nice. Granted, they’ve all come to me in an effort to convert me, so I don’t necessarily even know if their nice attitudes were genuine or not, but for me at least, it’s not a personal thing, as it seems to be for some on here (most likely for good reasons, in the case of the ex-Mormons).

It is how one uses the ‘gun’. I don’t think that it should be about guns but rather something more respectful and gentle. People can be civil and polite in their disagreements and use logic instead of overworn rhetoric of a negative nature. Mormons are generally nice people because their faith teaches them to be christian and christlike. And yes, of course, they also want to convert you too. They believe that they have the truth (as do catholics on this board in regards to their own faith) and wish to share it. Nothing wrong in that since it comes from a good intention.

 

[dzheremi]

Hahaha. “It shouldn’t be about guns but rather something more respectful and gentle”…please, Sir, do not try to make my usage of the common phrase “stick to your guns” sound like something violent or ominous. That is just plain silly.

I’d like to think I’m nice and polite in most cases, though it is all in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? For instance, when I use the methods I have learned in my chosen field to refute BoM claims about the languages of the pre-Columbian Americas, I am accused of being “anti-Mormon”, whereas to me it isn’t even about religion to begin with. So if being nice or gentle means backing down from what I know to be true based on UNBAISED expert sources (not hopeful but misguided LDS hacks), then frankly I’m glad I’m not nice and I hope I never become nice.

Similarly, with regards to faith, I have stated several times by now that I have no problem with Mormons believing the things they do as articles of faith (you’re right, Catholics must do this too) - I have a problem with them NOT doing that, and instead trying to convert people to their way of thinking by manipulation of scientific evidence and pseudo-scientific theories. I’m glad my faith doesn’t depend on such activities.

And I would argue that there absolutely IS something wrong with trying to convert someone to Mormonism, no matter if the intention is good or not. Why does it seem like the Mormons here care more about intentions than doctrine? What is it again that the road to hell is said to be paved with…?

Lest you think I’m just being flippant with that last line, I mean it very literally. I do not believe Mormonism is a form of Christianity, so I believe that people who are converted from true Christian denominations into the LDS church are converting out of Christianity into something else, and hence, denying the ONLY means to their own salvation. This is one of those things there’s no “nice” way to say.

 

[1holycatholic]

No person can make a case for any religion.

Jesus established the Catholic Church with metaphysical certitude. You can’t make a stronger case than that.

Religion by and large depends on faith of the believing individual.

That’s fideism, which is religion founded on ignorance. Religious belief is based on faith and reason.

No case can be made for god that is based on evidence.

That’s not the case. Just because Mormons can’t do it, doesn’t make it so.

Mormons do make a good case for why they believe what they believe.

There is no evidence of this.

 

[RC_Matt]

What is it again that the road to hell is said to be paved with…?

Lest you think I’m just being flippant with that last line, I mean it very literally. I do not believe Mormonism is a form of Christianity, so I believe that people who are converted from true Christian denominations into the LDS church are converting out of Christianity into something else, and hence, denying the ONLY means to their own salvation. This is one of those things there’s no “nice” way to say.

And unless our Mormon friends consider the LDS website to be an “anti-Mormon site,” discussing Mormon doctrine, using Mormon sources, can hardly be considered “anti-Mormon” activity. It is simply providing the disclosure, a caveat emptor, that the Mormons themselves deliberately fail to do by employing the “milk-before-meat” tactic. That practice is blatantly deceptive and Mormons who come here to proselytize should hardly be surprised that they are not allowed to get away with it.

 

[scipio337]

What Church is that?

If you really have to ask, I doubt you’d understand…

zerinus:

I cannot discuss LDS temple ceremonies outside the temple. I advise you not to trust what you read on anti-Mormon websites.

zerinus

But it is no longer part of the ceremony. I’m assuming you had your endowment post 1984.

Surely, if it’s not a part of the ceremony, now you can talk about it, right???

 

[scipio337]

…we all know what goes on there, what changes have occurred and what the symbols all represent. of course none of it is in the standard works so maybe you don’t believe the endowment is anything more than speculation?

Ouch! That one’s going to leave a mark!

Zerinus, could you tell us where in the standard works is the command to keep the endowment ceremony secre…errr…sacred, not to be discussed with the hoi polloi?

 

[hosemonkey]

If you really have to ask, I doubt you’d understand…

But it is no longer part of the ceremony. I’m assuming you had your endowment post 1984.

Zerinus doesn’t want to be embarrassed by admitting that he fell for the silliness that goes on in the temple. And I don’t think that zerinus was even born in 1984.

 

[AirLiner]

To be honest, the more I hang out here, the more I am convinced that the Catholic church could NOT be the true church. The only prosletizing that happens around here is negative. Hose?

Ah well if people have been unfriendly to you here and made you feel bad, I apologize. You shouldn’t judge the Church if a few Catholics are unfriendly. It’s the doctrines of the Church that matter. When judging the Church use your brain not your feelings.

 

[mfbukowski]

I think I’ll throw this one out to the feeding frenzy and see what kind of bites I get.

When you get your information about what Mormons believe from anti-mormons, what you get is cartoonish caricatures of what we believe, and when we DO explain what we do believe, no one listens long enough here to GET it. And of course you don’t want to GET it because we might be right.

Then everybody has fun making fun of the caricatures, and you all get to think that you have “refuted” something, and you all dance around in war paint and whoop it up.

Let’s try to be reasonable one more time. I don’t know why I am such an optimist, but here goes.

Let’s just look at how Mormons view God.

We believe that there is one “God” who is infinite and eternal. “God” is like a family of three persons who are perfectly united in purpose. Talk to one, you talk to all. They are one.

Each person who is part of the three is in some sense “God” as well. Jesus is God, and he is a member of the “Godhead”

So you could easily caricature this belief as “polytheism”

“Mormons believe in 3 Gods ha ha”

But that statement would be neither true nor accurate.

Mormons also SPECULATE on things that never occurr to most people. What happened before the Big Bang? How could we know that? Science cannot prove anything about that. Time began at the big bang. So to discuss what happened “before” time makes no sense. It is an object of faith.

It is my personal belief, not doctrinal, that God in some sense caused the big bang.

That means that somehow, he existed before time.

But why did he cause the big bang? Why did he make the world?

These are all clearly faith based questions which no one can “prove” the answers to.

One of the theories put forward is the quasi-doctrinal belief of Mormons that God himself was once as we are now. Before time, before creation, before anything that we can ever in principle know or understand. Perhaps it was in another universe, dimension or whatever-- we cannot in principle KNOW this in any scientific sense. We can know it by revelation, however.

Catholicism doesn’t even ask the question “What was God doing floating around for eternity before he created us?”

We answer the questions Catholicism doesn’t even ask.

But people who don’t understand now take this and say “Mormons are polytheists, who believe in life on other planets”

If that is your level of understanding of what I have explained, then so be it. It is a total caricature.

This is true for all of Mormon doctrine.

And if you think for a second that you understand the symbolism of the temple, think again.

You have to go hundreds of times before you even begin to get a glimmer of the textures of the symbolism. The ordinace itself is like learning to draw the alphabet. And then you see that what that alphabet creates is far beyond shakespeare. That there could be so much information in such a brief presentation is a miracle in itself.

It is like looking at the code of an encrypted file and thinking you understand the full context of why the file was written.

One of our prophets at an advanced age turned to a member of the quorum of 12 and said “You know, I think I am just beginning to understand the endowment”.

So where’s the warpaint?

 

[mfbukowski]

Ah well if people have been unfriendly to you here and made you feel bad, I apologize. You shouldn’t judge the Church if a few Catholics are unfriendly. It’s the doctrines of the Church that matter. When judging the Church use your brain not your feelings.

Tell that to St Francis of Assisi or Theresa of Avila. It’s not that I am “hurt” it’s just that if you guys are trying to convert anyone, it’s not going to work that way.

Get your motivation straight and then live with it. I am here to defend what you think Mormonism is.

 

[PaulDupre]

I think I’ll throw this one out to the feeding frenzy and see what kind of bites I get.

When you get your information about what Mormons believe from anti-mormons, what you get is cartoonish caricatures of what we believe,…

We get our information about what Mormons believe from:

1. The Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price
2. The LDS Church’s current teaching manuals, especially “Gospel Principles”.
3. The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
4. History of the Church
5. The Journal of Discourses
6. The Ensign magazine
7. Other books and sermons by LDS prophets and apostles

Are those anti-Mormon sources?

With the quotes available from LDS leaders, no anti-Mormon sources are required!

 

[mfbukowski]

We get our information about what Mormons believe from:

1. The Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price
2. The LDS Church’s current teaching manuals, especially “Gospel Principles”.
3. The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
4. History of the Church
5. The Journal of Discourses
6. The Ensign magazine
7. Other books and sermons by LDS prophets and apostles

Are those anti-Mormon sources?

With the quotes available from LDS leaders, no anti-Mormon sources are required!

And you know better than most how much of a caricature you make of what is in these sources.