Why all the Mormon Bashing?

[why_me]

Now to your “Bashing” Point. Since you intentionally left the Term undefined I’ll have to proceed as best I can. It is NOT Bashing to defend & uphold our Catholic Church, Bible, History, Moral values etc. from the constant onslaught of various Protestant & Other Purportedly Christian groups.

It is Not Bashing to point out those areas of Disagreement nor is it Bashing to repudiate the falsehoods that are propagated against us and the Church, which Christ Jesus Established and has maintained for 2000 years.

Regards, Your’s in Christ, Vivat Jesus!

But here is the problem: A catholic on this forum starts a thread about the mormon church that is negative. Mormons come to the forum to disagree with the original poster. The original poster is then joined by the professional mormon bashers. The mormon bashers bash the mormons with catholic doctrine and the mormons continue to defend themselves. And then the catholic mormon bashers claim that they are only defending the catholic church. See the problem?

Now of course if the mormons started a thread on this forum: The catholic church is obviously false so why are there still catholics? Well, of course then the catholics would be honestly defending their faith if they respond to such a thread.

 

[Zundrah]

The catholic church is obviously false so why are there still catholics? Well, of course then the catholics would be honestly defending their faith if they respond to such a thread.

The catholic church is obviously false? Then why do you have catholic as your religious title? …just curious.

 

[mjf001]

Zundrah,
In addition to the reply given by Diana, I had thought about a couple of other things when I noticed your question here.

A person who is baptized by water will want the baptism of “fire” or in other words, the Holy Spirit, right away in their life since baptism is an “entry” step into a whole process–the process of following Christ and becoming like Christ through His help and guidance and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So the two “ordinances” of baptism and receiving the “gift of the Holy Spirit” should happen successively. This happened in New Testament times on many occasions as recorded in Acts.

Without the ongoing influence of the Holy Spirit, a person who was baptized, although very sincere and no doubt a follower of Christ, will not have the kind of two-way communication with God that will sustain them during the challenges and difficulties of their life to the same extent as a person who has the Holy Spirit with them. The New Testament talks about sanctification. The Holy Spirit is necessary for that sanctification to happen.

In order for the Holy Spirit to provide that two-way communication and sanctification on an ongoing basis, it seems logical to me that God would have a valid pattern for that to happen, and would expect that pattern to be followed rather than humankind saying “the pattern doesn’t matter–only my intent matters”. I think that to God, intent does matter very much, but the pattern also matters, and the authority matters.

I hope this has clarified a bit more for you. Have a good evening.

Catholics have the Holy Spirit, Parker. When I was baptized in '04, on Easter vigil, I was baptized and confirmed (along with the other members of my RCIA class) on the same night. The Holy Spirit does guide members of the Catholic Church. I agree the pattern (form) does matter, as does authority. That authority was given to St. Peter and passed to the bishops by St. Peter and the other apostles in a direct line of succession.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[ParkerD]

Catholics have the Holy Spirit, Parker. When I was baptized in '04, on Easter vigil, I was baptized and confirmed (along with the other members of my RCIA class) on the same night. The Holy Spirit does guide members of the Catholic Church. I agree the pattern (form) does matter, as does authority. That authority was given to St. Peter and passed to the bishops by St. Peter and the other apostles in a direct line of succession.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
I actually feel like you do have the Holy Spirit, as do other Catholics as they communicate with respect and the kind of charity and love in their heart that Paul and John wrote about. If you are feeling a process of sanctification happening in your life, then I think that’s great. Thanks for the clarification in your comment.

 

[SkinnyJay]

But here is the problem: A catholic on this forum starts a thread about the mormon church that is negative. Mormons come to the forum to disagree with the original poster. The original poster is then joined by the professional mormon bashers. The mormon bashers bash the mormons with catholic doctrine and the mormons continue to defend themselves. And then the catholic mormon bashers claim that they are only defending the catholic church. See the problem?

Now of course if the mormons started a thread on this forum: The catholic church is obviously false so why are there still catholics? Well, of course then the catholics would be honestly defending their faith if they respond to such a thread.

So as long as the OP belongs to another faith it doesn’t matter what I say as long as I can perceive a negative connotation, I will just be defending myself from those pesky Catholic Bashers.

BTW didn’t this thread start with an irritated Catholic that was trying to STOP Mormon Bashing on the part of Catholics? I mean come on, where is the negative connotation for Mormons in the title of this thread: “Why all the Mormon Bashing?” I suppose one needs to look farther then the religious affiliation next to the name on the original post. Or perhaps read the post?

Your conclusion does not hold water.

 

[zerinus]

My dear Z. If what you say is correct, then you are holding two contrary opinions simultaneously. You cannot simultaneously believe that (1) Catholicism is not wrong from top to bottom; and (2) It apostatized early in its history. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You can say what you like; I don’t see a contradiction. You want to look at things in black and white. I don’t. I believe that although the Christian church lost the priesthood in the first century through apostasy, Christianity as a whole, (and Catholicism in particular) has been a force for good in the world for most of ts history.

Apostacy is the act of complete rejection of the Christian faith. If the Catholic Church has completely rejected the Christian faith, then there can be nothing right about it (and since I was limiting my comments strictly to doctrinal matters, I will assume you hold the same limits). Do you not see your inconsistency here?

Not at all! I wrote an article in Blog about the Apostasy two years ago in which all of that was explained.

As for the incorrect motivation and spiritual dangers of mormonism. These two concepts from from the first principle - IMO. If you believe that Catholicism is “apostate” - then you must logically conclude that: (1) our motivations (on a doctrinal level) are possibly misplaced; and (2) our apostate religion is potentially harmful to our eternal progression.

Point #1 is too vague to be meaningful. “Motivation” for what? And at which “doctrinal level”? The answer to point #2 is a straight No.

To say otherwise is to be disingenuous, although that may be flowing from some altruistic or ecumenical sentiment on your part.

That simply isn’t true.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that I may think you’re a great person and might enjoy having a glass of lemonade with you. We have an obligation to be honest with each other about our differing viewpoints on our differing faiths.

LOL! That was amusing.

I’m sure you disagree with Catholicism.

I don’t! I disagree with some aspects of its theology, which is not a big deal. God never sent anyone to hell for getting a doctrine wrong.

But I’m not going to bash you for being a Mormon. I expect you to tell me why you think I am wrong while I do the same for your benefit. Our mutual obligation is to remain charitable.

Thank you! I hope so too.

 

[why_me]

So as long as the OP belongs to another faith it doesn’t matter what I say as long as I can perceive a negative connotation, I will just be defending myself from those pesky Catholic Bashers.

BTW didn’t this thread start with an irritated Catholic that was trying to STOP Mormon Bashing on the part of Catholics? I mean come on, where is the negative connotation for Mormons in the title of this thread: “Why all the Mormon Bashing?” I suppose one needs to look farther then the religious affiliation next to the name on the original post. Or perhaps read the post?

Your conclusion does not hold water.

There is a thread started by a catholic that leads: Why are there still mormons since the mormon church is obviously false? See my point? Mormons come to defend themselves and the catholic mormon-bashers come to bash them with catholic doctrine. Mormons continue to defend themselves and the the catholic mormon- bashers claim that they are only defending the catholic faith. See as an example:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363749

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=358104&highlight=mormon+threads

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=357691&highlight=mormon+threads

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=336588&highlight=mormon+threads****

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You can say what you like; I don’t see a contradiction. You want to look at things in black and white. I don’t. I believe that although the Christian church lost the priesthood in the first century through apostasy, Christianity as a whole, (and Catholicism in particular) has been a force for good in the world for most of ts history.And I believe that Mormonism has been a force for much good in the world as well. But I think its doctrines are erroneous. Good works is not evidence of true doctrine. It is evidence of people doing good works. My point of contention with mormons is not about what they do (or don’t do) but about what they believe on matters of doctrine. And if you (as a practicing Mormon) believe that the Catholic Church is apostate, then you believe it completely rejected the Christian faith. That’s the definition of Apostacy (complete rejection - i.e. top to bottom) If you think the early Church committed something LESS than the “Great Apostacy” then you are not being consistent with what your faith teaches you.

Not at all! I wrote an article in Blog about the Apostasy two years ago in which all of that was explained.Explained from your opinion and interpretation, or from Mormon authoritative teaching?

That simply isn’t true.Then I guess you’re defining Apostacy different the definition I have learned.

LOL! That was amusing.Thanks.

I don’t! I disagree with some aspects of its theology, which is not a big deal. God never sent anyone to hell for getting a doctrine wrong.My comments were intending to address only matters of theology. I have no objection to how Mormons operate their charities or do good things or support each other or build up their communities (alll wonderful things). When I said the religion was wrong from top to bottom I was referring only to its doctrines.

Peace,
Robert

 

[why_me]

The catholic church is obviously false? Then why do you have catholic as your religious title? …just curious.

Read my context in the post where the statement is made…

 

[zerinus]

And I believe that Mormonism has been a force for much good in the world as well. But I think its doctrines are erroneous. Good works is not evidence of true doctrine. It is evidence of people doing good works. My point of contention with mormons is not about what they do (or don’t do) but about what they believe on matters of doctrine. And if you (as a practicing Mormon) believe that the Catholic Church is apostate, then you believe it completely rejected the Christian faith. That’s the definition of Apostacy (complete rejection - i.e. top to bottom) If you think the early Church committed something LESS than the “Great Apostacy” then you are not being consistent with what your faith teaches you.

Then you haven’t read my article on the Apostasy in my Blog. Read that, and then come back to me and we will talk about it more.

Explained from your opinion and interpretation, or from Mormon authoritative teaching?

I don’t teach anything unless I am convinced it is authoritative. What I don’t claim is to act as an official representative of the LDS Church. But I believe my teachings are authoritative.

Then I guess you’re defining Apostacy different the definition I have learned.

Read my article, and we will talk about it more.

My comments were intending to address only matters of theology. I have no objection to how Mormons operate their charities or do good things or support each other or build up their communities (alll wonderful things). When I said the religion was wrong from top to bottom I was referring only to its doctrines.

I was not talking about charity either. When I said that I don’t believe the Catholic Church is not “wrong from top to bottom,” I included doctrine; and when I said it has been a source for good in the world, I meant in matters of faith, not just of charity.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Then you haven’t read my article on the Apostasy in my Blog. Read that, and then come back to me and we will talk about it more.

I read your article on the apostacy. I disagree with you. Even your own article cites the acknowledgment that nothing short of a total apostacy would make a restoration a necessity. You go on to conclude that “apostacy” means nothing more than the loss of priesthood authority (a pretty big claim) … but fail to explain exactly how that would come about with something less than a complete rejection of Christianity. In fact your analogy of a body with its head cut off is the best analogy for apostacy. The head being Christ (biblically speaking). If the “apostacy” were something less than complete rejection, the head would still be attached (metaphorically speaking) as would the priesthood. Since it is not (as you claim) then the apostacy was complete… a complete rejection of Christ’s teachings. So, your position is inconsistent.

If I’ve misunderstood your position, I invite you to explain to me how you can say that, on the one hand, there was a complete apostacy (rejection of Christian teaching) that caused the loss of priesthood authority and necessitated a restoration, while on the other hand the completely apostate Church still continues to hold to remnants of Christian doctrinal truth. I’m being sincere when I say that I just don’t understand how you can reconcile these two claims.

zerinus:

I don’t teach anything unless I am convinced it is authoritative. What I don’t claim is to act as an official representative of the LDS Church. But I believe my teachings are authoritative.

OK Fair enough.

zerinus:

I was not talking about charity either. When I said that I don’t believe the Catholic Church is not “wrong from top to bottom,” I included doctrine; and when I said it has been a source for good in the world, I meant in matters of faith, not just of charity.

Then you are not being consistent with your own Church’s teaching on the Great Apostacy. But, as I noted above, it may just be my inability to grasp the subtlety of your position. To me it seems like you are simultaneously holding on to two opposing concepts: (1) The early Christian Church completely rejected the Christian faith; and (2) The Christian Church still holds to some true Christian doctrines. God bless you for holding those two principles simultaneously. But I cannot see the logic behind it.

I’ll ponder it further over a glass of lemonade with my LDS twin brother this weekend. (My lemonade willl be the lemonade with the gin in it. His will have sugar and mint.

Peace,
Robert

 

[PaulDupre]

I am sorry.

I hope you know that I would have spoken up.

Thank you, Diana. I hope so.

 

[Zundrah]

Read my context in the post where the statement is made…

I hope that you didn’t think that I was being mean…

 

[SkinnyJay]

There is a thread started by a catholic that leads: Why are there still mormons since the mormon church is obviously false? See my point? Mormons come to defend themselves and the catholic mormon-bashers come to bash them with catholic doctrine. Mormons continue to defend themselves and the the catholic mormon- bashers claim that they are only defending the catholic faith. See as an example:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363749

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=358104&highlight=mormon+threads

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=357691&highlight=mormon+threads

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=336588&highlight=mormon+threads****

Thats great. But again, this means it’s ok to bash another religion as long as they threw the first punch?

 

[zerinus]

I read your article on the apostacy. I disagree with you. Even your own article cites the acknowledgment that nothing short of a total apostacy would make a restoration a necessity. You go on to conclude that “apostacy” means nothing more than the loss of priesthood authority (a pretty big claim) … but fail to explain exactly how that would come about with something less than a complete rejection of Christianity. In fact your analogy of a body with its head cut off is the best analogy for apostacy. The head being Christ (biblically speaking). If the “apostacy” were something less than complete rejection, the head would still be attached (metaphorically speaking) as would the priesthood. Since it is not (as you claim) then the apostacy was complete… a complete rejection of Christ’s teachings. So, your position is inconsistent.

If I’ve misunderstood your position, I invite you to explain to me how you can say that, on the one hand, there was a complete apostacy (rejection of Christian teaching) that caused the loss of priesthood authority and necessitated a restoration, while on the other hand the completely apostate Church still continues to hold to remnants of Christian doctrinal truth. I’m being sincere when I say that I just don’t understand how you can reconcile these two claims.

OK Fair enough.

Then you are not being consistent with your own Church’s teaching on the Great Apostacy. But, as I noted above, it may just be my inability to grasp the subtlety of your position. To me it seems like you are simultaneously holding on to two opposing concepts: (1) The early Christian Church completely rejected the Christian faith; and (2) The Christian Church still holds to some true Christian doctrines. God bless you for holding those two principles simultaneously. But I cannot see the logic behind it.

I think you are sticking too close to the dictionary definition of the apostasy. By “complete apostasy” we mean complete loss of priesthood authority, not that all the Christians became completely depraved, and stopped being Christians. We believe that there was a serious apostasy (in the dictionary definition) by a large section of the Christian community in the early days; but that did not mean that everyone became apostate in that sense. There were still many faithful Christians left in the world. But that initial apostasy had serious consequences for the Christian church as a whole, the most important being that the institution of the Twelve Apostles could not be perpetuated in the church. The persecution of the Christians at that time also played a part in that. By Christian tradition, all the Apostles were martyred during their missions. Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. The rest were martyred in other parts of the world. The condition of the world was not conducive to the perpetuation of that institution in the church at that time. With the Apostles gone, the priesthood authority of the church was also lost, because they held the keys of the priesthood over the whole church. This did not mean that there were no more good Christians left in the world. It simply meant that the priesthood authority was lost. It does not mean that the church lost the Holy Spirit altogether either. Those who remained true and faithful still had the Holy Spirit which testified to them of Jesus Christ. This phenomenon was described by the Lord in the New Testament in the parable of the wheat and the tares. That is the state in which the Christian church was, and remained until the Restoration in the latter days. That is what we mean by the Apostasy of the Christian church. Now if you think that that does not square with the dictionary definition of the word apostasy, or if you think we are making an incorrect use of the word apostasy to apply it to that scenario, that is okay. If you can recommend to us a better word to use, we will use that one. At the moment I can’t think of a better word to use, so I will stick to the word apostasy for now until you can recommend me a better one.

I hope that has answered your question. If it hasn’t, please tell me what part of it was not clear, and I will try again.

I’ll ponder it further over a glass of lemonade with my LDS twin brother this weekend. (My lemonade willl be the lemonade with the gin in it. His will have sugar and mint.

That may be the explanation of the problem. Too much gin in your head can stop you from thinking clearly.

 

[dianaiad]

Thats great. But again, this means it’s ok to bash another religion as long as they threw the first punch?

I think…it’s alright to throw your hand up to block the fist coming at your nose.

It’s also OK to point out when a critic has to adjust the beam in his eye in order to get a better look at the mote in yours.

Not only that, but I believe that it is not only OK, but almost demanded of you, to correct misinformation when it is being spread; you are, after all, doing your critic a favor thereby. Consider; if he uses inaccurate information to discredit you, reasonable listeners will assume that he did it deliberately because the truth would NOT discredit you. If the truth does not discredit you, then, well…

Finally, those who begin a conversation by being rude, insulting and ‘bashing’ another religion sometimes tend to see soft answers and civil attempts at correction as weakness. They come back with ad hominems and ratchet up the heat. In that case, the only thing that can get through is to clobber 'em. Not their BELIEFS, mind you. Just…them.

 

[SkinnyJay]

I think…it’s alright to throw your hand up to block the fist coming at your nose.

It’s also OK to point out when a critic has to adjust the beam in his eye in order to get a better look at the mote in yours.

Not only that, but I believe that it is not only OK, but almost demanded of you, to correct misinformation when it is being spread; you are, after all, doing your critic a favor thereby. Consider; if he uses inaccurate information to discredit you, reasonable listeners will assume that he did it deliberately because the truth would NOT discredit you. If the truth does not discredit you, then, well…

Finally, those who begin a conversation by being rude, insulting and ‘bashing’ another religion sometimes tend to see soft answers and civil attempts at correction as weakness. They come back with ad hominems and ratchet up the heat. In that case, the only thing that can get through is to clobber 'em. Not their BELIEFS, mind you. Just…them.

Yes this is mostly what I had in mind. Just trying to move beyond the “they fired first” line. Especially considering when someone going for quantity over quality starts a thread in an online forum it is almost better to start off inflammatory. To be honest I have seen the most well thought out, reasoned posts from both sides of an argument on those purposefully inflammatory threads. After, of course, sifting through the sea of bickering back and forth, again from both sides. It would be nice to have the cool without the bicker and I pray for that.

 

[why_me]

Thats great. But again, this means it’s ok to bash another religion as long as they threw the first punch?

Not one mormon on this forum is bashing catholicism. However, they do come to this forum to defend the mormon faith agaist harsh attacks. That was my only point. An ‘apologist’ cannot claim that they are defending their faith when one of their own bash another faith, the people of that faith come to the thread to defend their faith, and the apologist bashes them with mormon doctrine and with catholic doctrine.

 

[why_me]

Finally, those who begin a conversation by being rude, insulting and ‘bashing’ another religion sometimes tend to see soft answers and civil attempts at correction as weakness. They come back with ad hominems and ratchet up the heat. In that case, the only thing that can get through is to clobber 'em. Not their BELIEFS, mind you. Just…them.

True. It is just sad that more catholics don’t ‘clobber’ them since they do not represent the catholic faith in a positive light.

 

[why_me]

Yes this is mostly what I had in mind. Just trying to move beyond the “they fired first” line. Especially considering when someone going for quantity over quality starts a thread in an online forum it is almost better to start off inflammatory. To be honest I have seen the most well thought out, reasoned posts from both sides of an argument on those purposefully inflammatory threads. After, of course, sifting through the sea of bickering back and forth, again from both sides. It would be nice to have the cool without the bicker and I pray for that.

I would hope that the people who call themselves catholics can represent the catholic faith well. If I did not care about the catholic faith, I would just let the catholic rant away. They are doing no one any favors except for the people who are negative toward the catholic faith.