Why all the Mormon Bashing?

[Religio71]

Religio, I spoiled your fun with the last person who did this sort of thing. I’ll stay out of it if you want to take over…

Just did a quick response. I don’t think these types come back though… Hit and run.

 

[dianaiad]

You, in fact, were Catholic. Every single Christian religion sprouted from the Truth of the Catholic Church. But having cut away roots in Apostolic Tradition every single Christian religion has also cut itself away from the life giving branch.

Actually, no. This argument works for Protestants, because they specifically began by ‘protesting’ or ‘reforming’ the Catholic church before they separated. Mormonism, however, is a member of a different group, the Restorationists. That is, we do not claim to be ‘fixing’ whatever is wrong with Catholicism. We claim to be restoring the original church of Jesus Christ, as it was before the Catholics were, well, Catholics. There are several groups in this classification; all of them rather different, when compared to either Catholicism or Protestantism as a whole.

Here is a paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonorable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.

I believe that you have, like in St. Thomas’ definition, professed a belief in Christ, therefore making you Christian. However, you, the LDS faith, have corrupted who if fact you are believing. The same words are used but the meaning of those words have changed.

It is just important to note that the LDS faith have taken, like many, what was the traditional Apostolic teachings of who Christ was and picked and chose the concepts wanted. Diverging from what was True, cutting those roots. That is what a heretic does.

OK, that’s fine, if this is how you wish to view us. I see that you have taken my point: from the Catholic POV we are either heretic or non-Christian, but we can’t be both.

 

[dianaiad]

Just did a quick response. I don’t think these types come back though… Hit and run.

Quite often, yes.

Sometimes, though, they stick around. Or else they do a ‘hit and hide’ rather than ‘hit and run.’ That is, they will make these claims, go silent for a few days until we stop laughing at them, and then come back and ‘hit’ again.

 

[PaulDupre]

So then, truth is based upon opinion? Interesting…

Did I say that? Please don’t distort my words; that is cowardly. I said that everyone is entitled to his opinion, not that all opinions are truth-based. My point was that I am not insecure about my faith and therefore am not bothered by those who think poorly of my beliefs.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Er…this is a specific sub forum of this Catholic website, entitled ‘non-Catholic religions.’

It was formed specifically for the discussion of those religions, not Catholicism. Presumably it was done so in order to get those discussions OFF of forums devoted to purely Catholic topics.

Am I so out of line to think that a little respect for the faith of those non-Catholic religions is in order here? Perhaps not as much as you insist that we respect Catholicism, but, well…some?

Not ‘belief in,’ but 'respect for."

Agree 100%

Two things I’d like to add:

1. We must remember that this is an apologetics website, so a critical investigation of other theologies is expected and shouldn’t be reduced to “bashing” as some members here imply. Anyone should be capable to maturely critique the beliefs and teachings of a particular organization or group without the members of said group feeling like the critique is a personal attack. Dogma and doctrine have no sentience, no feelings, no emotions so we shouldn’t be stepping on egg shells to be overly politically correct. HOWEVER, at the same time, it is admittely difficult (though not impossible) to recognize the boundary between the belief being had and the sentient, emotional person holding them. Due to this, it’s important to exercise a bit of courtesy in our choice of words and phrases when discussing others’ beliefs.
2. We must also remember that the membership here isn’t a monolith (in either direction). I know some very reasonable, eloquently polite Mormons and Catholics here and unfortunately some Mormons and Catholics who really get under my skin with their complete disregard for Christian Charity. It isn’t fair to paint everyone who claims a particular ecclesiastical affiliation with the same color as another individual who claims the same affiliation.

I’ve also noticed that “bashing” need not necessarily be qualified here. Those who (genuinely) tend to bash Mormons also bash Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, “Liberals”, etc. They’re simply crabby, immature people.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

You, in fact, were Catholic. Every single Christian religion sprouted from the Truth of the Catholic Church. But having cut away roots in Apostolic Tradition every single Christian religion has also cut itself away from the life giving branch.

Here is a paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonorable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.

I believe that you have, like in St. Thomas’ definition, professed a belief in Christ, therefore making you Christian. However, you, the LDS faith, have corrupted who if fact you are believing. The same words are used but the meaning of those words have changed.

It is just important to note that the LDS faith have taken, like many, what was the traditional Apostolic teachings of who Christ was and picked and chose the concepts wanted. Diverging from what was True, cutting those roots. That is what a heretic does.

This still doesn’t negate what Dianaid said. One must be professly a Catholic in order to deviate from the teaching authority of the Church. What this also means is that individuals are heretics, not organizations.

Martin Luther by definition would be a heretic since he physically apostatized from the Catholic Church. Joseph Smith Jr. was never a Catholic to begin with.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Actually, no. This argument works for Protestants, because they specifically began by ‘protesting’ or ‘reforming’ the Catholic church before they separated. Mormonism, however, is a member of a different group, the Restorationists. That is, we do not claim to be ‘fixing’ whatever is wrong with Catholicism. We claim to be restoring the original church of Jesus Christ, as it was before the Catholics were, well, Catholics. There are several groups in this classification; all of them rather different, when compared to either Catholicism or Protestantism as a whole.

OK, that’s fine, if this is how you wish to view us. I see that you have taken my point: from the Catholic POV we are either heretic or non-Christian, but we can’t be both.

A bit of a false dichotomy. One can be both a heretic and a Christian. Take Arius, or Martin Luther for example.

In any case (as you so aptly demonstrated in an earlier post) one must first be a Catholic in order to become a heretic.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Actually, no. This argument works for Protestants, because they specifically began by ‘protesting’ or ‘reforming’ the Catholic church before they separated. Mormonism, however, is a member of a different group, the Restorationists. That is, we do not claim to be ‘fixing’ whatever is wrong with Catholicism. We claim to be restoring the original church of Jesus Christ, as it was before the Catholics were, well, Catholics. There are several groups in this classification; all of them rather different, when compared to either Catholicism or Protestantism as a whole.

Yes there is a difference between Protestants, Restorationists, and Catholics I agree. However, since we on the topic of Catholic POV, both restoration and protestant communities have changed the teachings of Christ handed down through Tradition from Catholicism. Whether one says that Catholicism had barnacles on the ship that needed cleaning off (cutting some roots) or the ship sunk centuries ago (removing all but a few roots) it still stands that the Jesus and His teachings handed down have been changed. Next we get into who did the changing and whatnot because we cannot all be right but from Catholic POV it was not us. If heretics equal people who change doctrine I see Mormons as equaling heretics.

OK, that’s fine, if this is how you wish to view us. I see that you have taken my point: from the Catholic POV we are either heretic or non-Christian, but we can’t be both.

LDS = Christian, sure, but I wouldn’t use the same meaning of Christian I use with LDS when calling a Catholic or Protestant a Christian.

 

[SkinnyJay]

This still doesn’t negate what Dianaid said. One must be professly a Catholic in order to deviate from the teaching authority of the Church. What this also means is that individuals are heretics, not organizations.

Martin Luther by definition would be a heretic since he physically apostatized from the Catholic Church. Joseph Smith Jr. was never a Catholic to begin with.

From what I have read and understood one needs only be professedly Christian, not necessarily Catholic. I am new to this so I could be mistaken but that was my impression. Please if you could cite something to the contrary that would be great to further my understanding.

Maybe I am missing a term or something but if the Church cannot call an institution that teaches deviation from the fullness of Truth heretical what should she call them?

 

[dianaiad]

Yes there is a difference between Protestants, Restorationists, and Catholics I agree. However, since we on the topic of Catholic POV, both restoration and protestant communities have changed the teachings of Christ handed down through Tradition from Catholicism. Whether one says that Catholicism had barnacles on the ship that needed cleaning off (cutting some roots) or the ship sunk centuries ago (removing all but a few roots)

Actually, we don’t think your boat sank. We simply believe that the captain and crew missed it.

(sorry, I couldn’t resist that. I SHOULD have resisted it, I really should have… I apologize, but…)

it still stands that the Jesus and His teachings handed down have been changed. Next we get into who did the changing and whatnot because we cannot all be right but from Catholic POV it was not us. If heretics equal people who change doctrine I see Mormons as equaling heretics.

LDS = Christian, sure, but I wouldn’t use the same meaning of Christian I use with LDS when calling a Catholic or Protestant a Christian.

Well, if you take the dictionary definition of “Christian,” (as I do) then we most definitely are. So are you.

If, however, your definition of “Christian” is 'he who agrees with me," or even “he who agrees with me on the important stuff (as defined by me, of course)” or even more common “he who is saved,” that’s when the problems begin.

 

[PaulDupre]

From what I have read and understood one needs only be professedly Christian, not necessarily Catholic. I am new to this so I could be mistaken but that was my impression. Please if you could cite something to the contrary that would be great to further my understanding.

Maybe I am missing a term or something but if the Church cannot call an institution that teaches deviation from the fullness of Truth heretical what should she call them?

FWIW, the gnostics of the 2nd century were called heretics by the Early Church Fathers. They may or may not have considered themselves Christians, but they were definitely heretics because they produced phoney “scriptures” and revelations which directly contradicted the teachings of Jesus and the twelve just as the Mormons do.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m not a Mormon, never was, and don’t think I know any either.

Having said that though, I’m repulsed by Protestant and Catholic attacks on The Latter Day Saints. These are people, Mormons, who:

1. Are more pro life than some “catholics”
2. Are even against birth control (I think…all I know is that they usually have big familes!
3. Are against same-sex marriage. Strongly
4. Believe strongly in Chastity (and I think studies show that teen Mormons lead the way in that one)
5. Are on the right side in the culture war on virutally every issue.
6. Seem like wonderful people who even have a family game night and focus strongly on being anti-divorce

Yes, in this increasibly secular society, let’s attack The Church of Latter Day Saints.

I KNOW it’s not just Catholics who bash them.

But let’s get a grip people.

I frankly don’t care about peoples beliefs. I care deeply about there actions. Let’s unite with the mormons on issues we care about and stop the fighting!

I trust that you’re equally interested in seeing the Mormons on the forum that routinely bash Catholics stop doing so, right?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Mormons are definitely bashed on this forum and usually the hardest by former Mormons who have converted to Catholicism, and frankly, it makes Catholics look bad. Why ex-Mormons hate practicing Mormons so much is totally beyond my comprehension. It’s really weird.

Mormons that leave their faith are often treated very badly by the people they once thought were their “friends”. This is very common and it would not be unusual for someone mistreated in this way to come away with bad feelings about it. Also, many former Mormons that post to this forum have had some very bad experiences associated with their former faith, observed bad behavior by supposedly “good” Mormons and other sorts of unpleasantness. Many also have come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, so they may feel betrayed and/or conned by the hierarchy. The Mormon hierarchy also has a well-documented history of suppressing dissent and those who question various aspects of the faith.

So for former Mormons to have bad feelings about their former faith is hardly “weird”, it very understandable. Should they forgive and move on? Of course! But that sometimes takes time. Perhaps someone needs to actually BE in that position to truly comprehend it, so the rest of us can just be grateful that we haven’t had to endure that.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Agree 100%

Two things I’d like to add:

1. We must remember that this is an apologetics website, so a critical investigation of other theologies is expected and shouldn’t be reduced to “bashing” as some members here imply. Anyone should be capable to maturely critique the beliefs and teachings of a particular organization or group without the members of said group feeling like the critique is a personal attack. Dogma and doctrine have no sentience, no feelings, no emotions so we shouldn’t be stepping on egg shells to be overly politically correct. HOWEVER, at the same time, it is admittely difficult (though not impossible) to recognize the boundary between the belief being had and the sentient, emotional person holding them. Due to this, it’s important to exercise a bit of courtesy in our choice of words and phrases when discussing others’ beliefs.
2. We must also remember that the membership here isn’t a monolith (in either direction). I know some very reasonable, eloquently polite Mormons and Catholics here and unfortunately some Mormons and Catholics who really get under my skin with their complete disregard for Christian Charity. It isn’t fair to paint everyone who claims a particular ecclesiastical affiliation with the same color as another individual who claims the same affiliation.

I’ve also noticed that “bashing” need not necessarily be qualified here. Those who (genuinely) tend to bash Mormons also bash Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, “Liberals”, etc. They’re simply crabby, immature people.

Correct. While it is not right to mistreat people, it is also important to note that disagreement with or rejection of the doctrines of another faith is not the equivalent of a personal attack on any member of that faith. Some posters routinely and inappropriately personalize these issues. This is also “crabby” and “immature”. Far more productive dialog can emerge if the tendency to personalize doctrinal critiques is abandoned.

 

[dianaiad]

Mormons that leave their faith are often treated very badly by the people they once thought were their “friends”. This is very common and it would not be unusual for someone mistreated in this way to come away with bad feelings about it. Also, many former Mormons that post to this forum have had some very bad experiences associated with their former faith, observed bad behavior by supposedly “good” Mormons and other sorts of unpleasantness. Many also have come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, so they may feel betrayed and/or conned by the hierarchy. The Mormon hierarchy also has a well-documented history of suppressing dissent and those who question various aspects of the faith.

So for former Mormons to have bad feelings about their former faith is hardly “weird”, it very understandable. Should they forgive and move on? Of course! But that sometimes takes time. Perhaps someone needs to actually BE in that position to truly comprehend it, so the rest of us can just be grateful that we haven’t had to endure that.

Well, you are begging a question here. A rather large one.

You see, those ex-Mormons who have NOT had bad experiences, but have simply moved on, don’t post in places like this one and bash their former faith and the members of it. They simply get on with their new lives and faiths.

So what you have here, with a large percentage of the ex-Mormons posting here, is a self selected (and thus hugely biased) sample–a sample that no statistician who likes his job would dare use in any study.

Think about it for a moment; do you really think that Catholicism is fairly represented and described by those ex-Catholics who post on alt.religion.christian.baptist or CARM? You know the ones…the ones who had rough experiences with the nuns or the local priest, or whose family has cast them out, or whose friends have abandoned them?

How about the ones who, by telling about their horrific experiences as a Catholic, and their trials and tribulations during their conversion out of Catholicism, get such sympathy and back pats from their new associates–do you think that they accurately describe Catholic life and beliefs?

What makes you think that the ex-Mormons would be any more accurate about our faith than those ex-Catholics are about yours?

When a Catholic converts to Mormonism, he or she will be told in no uncertain terms NOT to bash his or her former faith. No stories in Fast and Testimony meeting about the weird beliefs he left. No criticism of the faith left behind. No bashing the relatives who have thrown him out of the house (and that happens a lot.) No “Maze of Catholicism” books. No “The snake handlers” pamphlets. No comparisons between Mormonism and, say, Lutheranism or the Baptists published on fuzzy paper in black and red ink. It just doesn’t happen.

…and that difference between the CoJCoLDS and almost every other church I’ve seen is one of the things that keeps me Mormon.

 

[dianaiad]

Correct. While it is not right to mistreat people, it is also important to note that disagreement with or rejection of the doctrines of another faith is not the equivalent of a personal attack on any member of that faith. Some posters routinely and inappropriately personalize these issues. This is also “crabby” and “immature”. Far more productive dialog can emerge if the tendency to personalize doctrinal critiques is abandoned.

That—

would be rather refreshing.

Different, too.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Actually, we don’t think your boat sank. We simply believe that the captain and crew missed it.

(sorry, I couldn’t resist that. I SHOULD have resisted it, I really should have… I apologize, but…)

well something sank, and if it wasn’t the boat…

Well, if you take the dictionary definition of “Christian,” (as I do) then we most definitely are. So are you.

If, however, your definition of “Christian” is 'he who agrees with me," or even “he who agrees with me on the important stuff (as defined by me, of course)” or even more common “he who is saved,” that’s when the problems begin.

Webster: Christian: 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Anyone can profess belief in Jesus and His teachings, I am not denying anyone that. I am just wary of stretching the meaning of a word so important to me. I am sorry for being protective but I feel I must be.

 

[SkinnyJay]

FWIW, the gnostics of the 2nd century were called heretics by the Early Church Fathers. They may or may not have considered themselves Christians, but they were definitely heretics because they produced phoney “scriptures” and revelations which directly contradicted the teachings of Jesus and the twelve just as the Mormons do.

interesting. Yes I have heard of some of the phoney scriptures the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip… I am pretty sure gnostics professed a belief in Christ, i mean, having specifically gnostic scriptures still called Gospels…

 

[SkinnyJay]

Mormons that leave their faith are often treated very badly by the people they once thought were their “friends”. This is very common and it would not be unusual for someone mistreated in this way to come away with bad feelings about it. Also, many former Mormons that post to this forum have had some very bad experiences associated with their former faith, observed bad behavior by supposedly “good” Mormons and other sorts of unpleasantness. Many also have come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, so they may feel betrayed and/or conned by the hierarchy. The Mormon hierarchy also has a well-documented history of suppressing dissent and those who question various aspects of the faith.

So for former Mormons to have bad feelings about their former faith is hardly “weird”, it very understandable. Should they forgive and move on? Of course! But that sometimes takes time. Perhaps someone needs to actually BE in that position to truly comprehend it, so the rest of us can just be grateful that we haven’t had to endure that.

Well, you are begging a question here. A rather large one.

You see, those ex-Mormons who have NOT had bad experiences, but have simply moved on, don’t post in places like this one and bash their former faith and the members of it. They simply get on with their new lives and faiths.

So what you have here, with a large percentage of the ex-Mormons posting here, is a self selected (and thus hugely biased) sample–a sample that no statistician who likes his job would dare use in any study.

Think about it for a moment; do you really think that Catholicism is fairly represented and described by those ex-Catholics who post on alt.religion.christian.baptist or CARM? You know the ones…the ones who had rough experiences with the nuns or the local priest, or whose family has cast them out, or whose friends have abandoned them?

How about the ones who, by telling about their horrific experiences as a Catholic, and their trials and tribulations during their conversion out of Catholicism, get such sympathy and back pats from their new associates–do you think that they accurately describe Catholic life and beliefs?

What makes you think that the ex-Mormons would be any more accurate about our faith than those ex-Catholics are about yours?

When a Catholic converts to Mormonism, he or she will be told in no uncertain terms NOT to bash his or her former faith. No stories in Fast and Testimony meeting about the weird beliefs he left. No criticism of the faith left behind. No bashing the relatives who have thrown him out of the house (and that happens a lot.) No “Maze of Catholicism” books. No “The snake handlers” pamphlets. No comparisons between Mormonism and, say, Lutheranism or the Baptists published on fuzzy paper in black and red ink. It just doesn’t happen.

…and that difference between the CoJCoLDS and almost every other church I’ve seen is one of the things that keeps me Mormon.

Both of you have points. While it is not weird to see ex-mormons feeling conned and expressing it, these people will of course be louder then those who left with no hard feelings and the popular way of hearing the loudest may in fact not be the most accurate representation of the total population.

However it is still much better to listen to both and come to understand where the people are coming from then just not listen to either; because one may be loud but may also represent a small number or the other may be quiet but they’re ok so what’s the problem anyways.

We all know what happens when one assumes things…

 

[dianaiad]

well something sank, and if it wasn’t the boat…

Webster: Christian: 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Anyone can profess belief in Jesus and His teachings, I am not denying anyone that. I am just wary of stretching the meaning of a word so important to me. I am sorry for being protective but I feel I must be.

If it is the definition, then it’s not a stretch to call it the definition. “Christian” is a classification of belief. It is not an imprimatur of salvation or of accuracy. To a non-Christian, claiming to be Christian identifies only that one basic thing; belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Everything after that is an add on, and a separation of beliefs within that larger classification.

I am not Muslim. I am not Jewish. I am not Hindu or Budhist or Animist or any other 'ist…"

I am a Christian. Once that is established, then we can start to examine the differences in what I believe Jesus taught vs. what you do. We are both right about the main important thing, and probably a lot of other things, and I believe that I’m right about most things, and where you disagree with me, you are wrong. You believe the same about me.

Of course we believe that; if we didn’t, we’d join another group and then we would believe that about that group. To be otherwise would be hypocrisy indeed.