Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?

[pira114]

BJ Colbert:

Kind of like the war between the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland.

IBJ

This is not at all like the war in Ireland.

First, the struggles between Protestants and Catholics is a struggle between two Christian religions. Yours is more akin to a cult.

Second, the war in Ireland has very little to do with religion. It is all money and power. If Ireland did not represent a source of wealth for England, they would have left Ireland years ago. Religion has only been used to fuel support for one side or another. I know. I’ve been there.

As for why Catholics get aggresive with LDS, it’s because we have a duty to try and save people from your teachings. We have a duty to help them come to Christ. That’s all. Learning all about the LDS organization is just the best way to do this.

 

[majick275]

isaac.madsen:

Isn’t this self-contradictory? You use the same tactics that you so vehemently state are useless. Just understand this: We have no proof. You want proof of something, ask God. I’m sure he can work something out for you, but the LDS focus on faith, not proof. Using human understanding to prove a spiritual idea is utterly ridiculous. Humanity is flawed. The spirit is not. If you want historical proof, you’re looking for the wrong thing. If you want spiritual proof, ask God. If you don’t believe he gives answers to those who seek them, you’re in for a rough life.

Truly,

Isaac T. Madsen

I agree you have no proof. I did ask God. He has worked a miracle for me and brought me into his Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. I focus on faith and am rewarded with proof. Human understanding has been created by God and is very capable of using spiritual ideas to do his will. I agree Humanity IS flawed and God is not. We HAVE historical proof. God has already given us spiritual proof as well. I do believe he answers those who seek… I might disagree with you on just what it means to truly “seek” God. I found him in the eucharist and live for him every day now.

 

[dennisknapp]

isaac.madsen:

While that is a very nice story, I fail to see the connection to the present topic.

Then you say the following:

Isn’t this self-contradictory? You use the same tactics that you so vehemently state are useless. Just understand this: **We have no proof. **You want proof of something, ask God. I’m sure he can work something out for you, but the LDS focus on faith, not proof. Using human understanding to prove a spiritual idea is utterly ridiculous. Humanity is flawed. The spirit is not. If you want historical proof, you’re looking for the wrong thing. If you want spiritual proof, ask God. If you don’t believe he gives answers to those who seek them, you’re in for a rough life.

Truly,

Isaac T. Madsen

If you have no proof, why should we believe you? Are we just to take Smith’s word for it?

What if God told me personally that Mormonism were false, how could you say I was wrong?

Peace

 

[isaac.madsen]

majick275:

I agree you have no proof. I did ask God. He has worked a miracle for me and brought me into his Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. I focus on faith and am rewarded with proof. Human understanding has been created by God and is very capable of using spiritual ideas to do his will. I agree Humanity IS flawed and God is not. We HAVE historical proof. God has already given us spiritual proof as well. I do believe he answers those who seek… I might disagree with you on just what it means to truly “seek” God. I found him in the eucharist and live for him every day now.

The “proof” you have is just the same as our own. It is by your belief that you prove to yourself what you believe is true. You don’t believe in the Book of Mormon merely because you don’t believe the evidence that has been shown of its truth. I could show you any number of things that I believe are evidence of the truth, and you could state that you believe none of it.

In actuality, there is absolutely no physical evidence for anything in the Bible either. Yet, we still believe in the Bible, and because many of the cities spoken of exist, and are inhabited, we believe. The only reason you don’t believe the Book of Mormon is that the Nephites were wiped out centuries ago and the Lamanite nations (Native Americans) have no recollection of it because they kept no records. But I submit to you that a record was kept by the Nephites, that the Gold Plates did exist, that Joseph Smith did find the said plates. If you believe these things, the evidence comes, but it is only evidence that a believer can understand. If you have no faith, why should God give you the evidence? Thus, what I mean when I say we have no evidence is this: we have no evidence that you will understand or believe. This is because you do not believe the evidence that you have already been shown.

dennisknapp:

If you have no proof, why should we believe you? Are we just to take Smith’s word for it?

What if God told me personally that Mormonism were false, how could you say I was wrong?

Peace

In essence, what you’ve just said is that it’s fine to not believe Joseph Smith, but to not believe you in similar circumstances would be wrong.

 

[majick275]

I have to disagree with you. I believe that we have found significant evidence of many Biblical truths. I also believe that we have a large amount evidence that the BoM is NOT true, that JS fabricated his religion and even that the LDS church has changed its doctrine from what JS taught.

I am of the opinion that even believing Mormons have not found evidence of the truth of the BoM but have only found straws to grasp that somehow “question” some of the evidence AGAINST the book.

I am convinced that the “official” LDS position is still that one must accept mormonism solely on faith with ones subjective feeling about it as the “confirming” spiritual witness to it. You may believe you have received personal revelation of the “truth” of the LDS church, I believe that my own spiritual journey has revealed the opposite to me.

We have in fact discovered that pre-columbians DID keep records that we now can view. The only “evidence” the LDS show is the word of Joseph Smith and his close friends and family, many of whom left his church and some even started their own.

I’ll ask you to take “moroni’s test” on a different subject. Study the Catholic Church teachings out in your mind, ponder them and ask God with a sincere heart and real intent if these things are true. I will pray for God to bless you.

 

[dennisknapp]

isaac.madsen:

In essence, what you’ve just said is that it’s fine to not believe Joseph Smith, but to not believe you in similar circumstances would be wrong.

No, what I said is this: are we to just take his word for it? There is NO evidence from the early record of what Smith said was true. The PROOF I am looking for is thing called evidence. All the evidence points to Smith being wrong.

Another thing, what you have previously posted is the fallacy called begging the question. Have you ever taken a logic class. Let me explain: begging the question “is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: “Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted” Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition (in this case, “politicians are untrustworthy”) in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.” (for full text go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).

You assume that which you cannot prove to support your claim, therefore you beg the question.

Peace

 

[Brad_Haas]

isaac.madsen:

The “proof” you have is just the same as our own. It is by your belief that you prove to yourself what you believe is true.

Not I, sir. I believe what I do because I trust those who tell me. I don’t have to reassure myself of my belief in the existence of China, even though I’ve never been there. I believe people who have, and have no reason to lie, and yes, even provide evidence of it. Same with the Church.

isaac.madsen:

In actuality, there is absolutely no physical evidence for anything in the Bible either.

None? I think you’re mistaken. Did you know a chariot wheel was discovered on the floor of the Red Sea? My doubt in the Book of Mormon would be drastically reduced if even a single chariot wheel dating to BoM times were discovered in America.

 

[dennisknapp]

Brad Haas:

Not I, sir. I believe what I do because I trust those who tell me. I don’t have to reassure myself of my belief in the existence of China, even though I’ve never been there. I believe people who have, and have no reason to lie, and yes, even provide evidence of it. Same with the Church.

None? I think you’re mistaken. Did you know a chariot wheel was discovered on the floor of the Red Sea? My doubt in the Book of Mormon would be drastically reduced if even a single chariot wheel dating to BoM times were discovered in America.

You faithless man, questioning the blind assertions of a man who live 1800 years after the fact. For shame! How dare you require facts. We all know faith is based on myth, not fact.

Peace

 

[ben_dy]

dennisknapp:

No, what I said is this: are we to just take his word for it? There is NO evidence from the early record of what Smith said was true. The PROOF I am looking for is thing called evidence. All the evidence points to Smith being wrong.

Another thing, what you have previously posted is the fallacy called begging the question. Have you ever taken a logic class. Let me explain: begging the question “is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: “Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted” Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition (in this case, “politicians are untrustworthy”) in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.” (for full text go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).

You assume that which you cannot prove to support your claim, therefore you beg the question.

Peace

Dennis,

While I am in complete agreement with what you’ve stated, everyone must admit that apologetics is a branch of theology in which the apologist has come to believe those doctrines which he is promoting or defending. (I’ve not been keeping up with this thread and this message is surely more relevant to the Mormon Apologetics thread, but, nonetheless…).

I don’t fault the Mormon (or anyone else who engages in apologetics) for his beliefs - I take that he believes for granted. Where I find fault is precisely where you find fault: in the methods and methodology used to ‘prove’ an LDS position or doctrine. The methods don’t fly in the college freshman Logic classroom, much less when an attempt is made to dress the methods up as scholarship or even lay apologetics. I first found this frustrating when trying to come to an understanding of a doctrine particular to Mormonism but now I realize that they are playing the hand that they have dealt themselves and are playing with a deck in which they have, themselves, removed all the face cards, leaving only a Joker to hope to trump a King - when I play cards for high stakes, the Jokers are removed from the deck (shouldn’t take a student of metaphor to figure THAT one!).

 

[dennisknapp]

ben_dy:

Dennis,

While I am in complete agreement with what you’ve stated, everyone must admit that apologetics is a branch of theology in which the apologist has come to believe those doctrines which he is promoting or defending. (I’ve not been keeping up with this thread and this message is surely more relevant to the Mormon Apologetics thread, but, nonetheless…).

I don’t fault the Mormon (or anyone else who engages in apologetics) for his beliefs - I take that he believes for granted. Where I find fault is precisely where you find fault: in the methods and methodology used to ‘prove’ an LDS position or doctrine. The methods don’t fly in the college freshman Logic classroom, much less when an attempt is made to dress the methods up as scholarship or even lay apologetics. I first found this frustrating when trying to come to an understanding of a doctrine particular to Mormonism but now I realize that they are playing the hand that they have dealt themselves and are playing with a deck in which they have, themselves, removed all the face cards, leaving only a Joker to hope to trump a King - when I play cards for high stakes, the Jokers are removed from the deck (shouldn’t take a student of metaphor to figure THAT one!).

I totally agree. I was just trying to provide our Mormon friend with some helpful information. I desire that all people reason well. That is all.

Peace

 

[isaac.madsen]

“Fact” is a relative term. To a man who is colorblind, shades of green and orange (or red) might appear exactly the same. Psychology states that any color might appear differently to different people, but since we’ve all grown up calling green by that name, we apply the same term to that color, even though it may appear differently in our minds. The same is true with any of the “facts.” As any court of law can tell you, various people may all tell the truth, but come to different conclusions as to what they saw. Each person has a unique angle. A witness might testify that two large men faced of in an alleyway, then shot eachother, but when the security camera reveals the truth to the shopkeeper who likes to keep an eye on his back door because of the last breakin, we realize that a third smaller man stepped in, hidden from view of the onlookers, and shot both of the larger men in order to stop a transaction that would have harmed his reputation.

Facts have flaws, including the “facts” about Catholicism. I don’t think there is a religion on earth that has the entire truth of all things. The Book of Mormon had a large sealed portion, which was not translated. Why would it have been sealed? Because we aren’t ready for that information yet. Faith precedes the miracle. The apostles had no proof that Christ was the redeemer. The relied on his word and their faith until the Crucifixion. Only then did they have evidence. You’re asking me to show evidence for something you don’t believe. If I gave you the evidence, you most likely wouldn’t believe it. Did Christ go to the Pharisees after his resurrection? No. They didn’t believe him before he died. Most likely, they’d find some excuse to believe he got away or some ridiculous thought along those lines. So you see, whatever I might try to give as evidence you will ultimately ridicule because facts are relative to what you believe. This is why I leave the facts to God, because in him only is truth eternal.

• Isaac T. Madsen

 

[majick275]

I beg to differ but Christ performed great miracles BEFORE his crucifixion. walking on water, raising the dead, casting out demons, curing blindness and leprosy, loaves and fishes not to mention water to wine. The Apostles had quite a lot to work with.

The LDS position on the other hand not only is missing evidence but actually has contradictory evidence.

We don’t have Jesus asking us to believe one thing one day and something contradictory ther next and something else the day after that. We DO see this from Joseph Smith and even more from Brigham Young.

The Apostles told us to hold fast to what they taught and compare everything with scripture and what Jesus taught. They told us NOT to believe “other” gospels no matter who taught them.

Jospeh Smith made up all kinds of new doctrines, changed those, changed them again, Brigham Young changed it yet again, his doctrine wwas (is still) denounced as false and finally we havethe final LDS position…or not…but not all the scriptures were changed so now they contradict each other. I am of course speaking of the nature of God. Trinity, two Gods, three Gods, Adam-God, Godhead.

God gives us facts. He always has. From the Garden of Eden with it’s tree of life to noah’s ark to Abrams visit from angels to Moses plagues on Egypt to Manna from heaven…the list goes on and on. We KNOW the truth. Quit guessing and read the book of Hebrews then 2 Peter. You’ll see it. study it out in your mind and then ask God with a sincere heart and true faith if the Catholic Church is true. God will bless you.

 

[dennisknapp]

“Fact” is a relative term. To a man who is colorblind, shades of green and orange (or red) might appear exactly the same. Psychology states that any color might appear differently to different people, but since we’ve all grown up calling green by that name, we apply the same term to that color, even though it may appear differently in our minds. The same is true with any of the “facts.” As any court of law can tell you, various people may all tell the truth, but come to different conclusions as to what they saw. Each person has a unique angle. A witness might testify that two large men faced of in an alleyway, then shot eachother, but when the security camera reveals the truth to the shopkeeper who likes to keep an eye on his back door because of the last breakin, we realize that a third smaller man stepped in, hidden from view of the onlookers, and shot both of the larger men in order to stop a transaction that would have harmed his reputation.

Facts have flaws, including the “facts” about Catholicism. I don’t think there is a religion on earth that has the entire truth of all things. The Book of Mormon had a large sealed portion, which was not translated. Why would it have been sealed? Because we aren’t ready for that information yet. Faith precedes the miracle. The apostles had no proof that Christ was the redeemer. The relied on his word and their faith until the Crucifixion. Only then did they have evidence. You’re asking me to show evidence for something you don’t believe. If I gave you the evidence, you most likely wouldn’t believe it. Did Christ go to the Pharisees after his resurrection? No. They didn’t believe him before he died. Most likely, they’d find some excuse to believe he got away or some ridiculous thought along those lines. So you see, whatever I might try to give as evidence you will ultimately ridicule because facts are relative to what you believe. This is why I leave the facts to God, because in him only is truth eternal.

• Isaac T. Madsen

So, you are a relativist who relies soley on his own subjective experience. Cool.

Let me ask you a question.

If you were wrong, would you want to know it?

Peace

 

[catholic-rcia]

When I was young my grandmother would read me passages from the New Testament then she would explain the meaning to me in the Mormon sense, in what she had been taught. As I began my journey to Catholicism the passages changed from what I was once taught into something entirely different when read in the proper Historical context. The difference being it was the Catholic Church through the inspiration of God that it was written, so it was the Catholic Church that is the proper translator. This is only right, this is only Just, this is only fair.

If one was to write a story about your own life , and this one received his or her information about you from another source who found your diary, read it and then it became lost, would this story be be accurate? What if it was somebody who was taught for whatever reason not to like you? Not to accept you? Imagine that in these writing you found quotes from what you had written, and that these quotes were taken totally out of context, and because of the author’s motives took on entirely different meanings. Would it not have been right for the author to come to you? To spend quality time with you? To go over your Diary with your permission with care and honesty? The only reason that I have come to know that this was not done is because of Motive. This is where the answer lies, it is in the motive. (it is found in the story of creation / the fall of mankind)

The Catholic Church is the biggest miracle in my own life, for it has given me peace in times of struggle, it has given me Christ at the center of my very own soul. Not so much for me, rather others to share this with. Those who have not yet found the Great Treasure spoken of by Jesus. The Cross has shown me an epiphany, Christmas, Christ to me, Christ to you, the Easter season is very much alive, the Passion moves on. This Church with two thousand years of forgiveness and reconciliation to sinners of all walks of life. It is simply all about forgiveness and reconciliation until we are home with our God, our Creator.

You open up the pages and learn to read the Most Holy Bible in context directly from the source itself. If you are truly honest with your self you will find the Cross, you will want to carry it, everything will change. Many our standing in a Lake, when there is an ocean to be discovered.

God Bless

 

[imroc]

BJ Colbert:

I am amazed at the study time put in by members of the Catholic Church to prove the LDS Church wrong.
Why do Catholics spend so much time and money buying and reading all things pro and con(mostly con)about the " Mormon "Church?
I am interested on the surface about the basic beliefs of the Catholic Church, just to be able to converse with my husband and understand the basic concepts of his Catholic faith, but I would never dig as deeply into it as some of these forum posters have delved into the LDS church.
So why is it so important to you? If it is just curiosity, why not ask the questions and accept the answers given by LDS, why tell them they are lying and don’t know their own religion as well as you Catholics know it.
Do you attend LDS meetings every Sunday for your entire life? How is it you claim to know more than a practicing Mormon?
Just curious…that is all…no offense intended BJ

I, myself, don’t buy Mormon literature because it’s so readily available from it’s members!

 

[isaac.madsen]

Majick,

Thank you. I’ll read it again, and I’ll pray about it, so long as you agree to read Alma Chapter 5 and Moroni 10:3-5. I’m sure you’ve read these before, but I’ll agree to these terms if you will.

Dennis,

Yeah. If I was wrong, I’d want to know, but so far, that hasn’t happened. Does that mean I’m right? Not necessarily. It just means that I have no proof either way. You might say that this in itself is proof that I’m wrong, but I’d have to disagree. Just because we haven’t found a cure for cancer doesn’t mean such a cure doesn’t exist. It’s the same concept.

catholic-rcia,

Your “journal-description” (if I may call it that) is exactly what Mormonism states has happened to the bible. It has been translated out of context. More than anything, I’d love to learn the ancient languages and read the original texts myself.

You may like your ocean, but I prefer to stay on higher ground, where I’m safe from Tsunami and tropical storms.

• Ike

 

[catholic-rcia]

(Quote=“Your “journal-description” (if I may call it that) is exactly what Mormonism states has happened to the bible”(/quote

I am aware of this lke , which Biblical passages would you like to discuss? If you are searching with an open heart for something new then I would love to share in these Things.

God Bless

www.catholic-rcia.com

 

[majick275]

Done.

 

[dennisknapp]

isaac.madsen:

Majick,
Dennis,

Yeah. If I was wrong, I’d want to know, but so far, that hasn’t happened. Does that mean I’m right? Not necessarily. It just means that I have no proof either way. You might say that this in itself is proof that I’m wrong, but I’d have to disagree. Just because we haven’t found a cure for cancer doesn’t mean such a cure doesn’t exist. It’s the same concept.

• Ike

If there is no proof either way you are neither right or wrong. In order to be right you need proof, especially when discussing views that differ. If you are not wrong prove it. All I hear Mormons saying is this, “you can’t prove me right, therefore I am not wrong.”

What I am saying is that you are wrong because we have “found the cure for cancer” in regards to proof of the apostasy (or lack thereof). What you have done is refuse to accept that there is a cure, choosing to believe, dispite the evidence for the cure brought to your attention, that there is no cure because Joseph Smith said this was so.

Peace

 

[ben_dy]

isaac.madsen:

Your “journal-description” (if I may call it that) is exactly what Mormonism states has happened to the bible. It has been translated out of context. More than anything, I’d love to learn the ancient languages and read the original texts myself.

• Ike

Wouldn’t that, by LDS standards, be impossible?

As most translations are made from one of Greek New Testaments published by the United Bible Societies (much better than the 400 year old Textus Receptus) available here, and offering all updated to include all significant variant texts, exclusive texts, etc., found in all known scraps of the very oldest papyri to the most complete codices or scrolls, wouldn’t these texts themselves be considered ‘corrupt’, ‘incomplete’, or ‘added to’? As no known signature scripts exist for any book of the Old or New Testaments my understanding as to why the LDS church continues to the use ‘corrupt’ KJV as a standard work (“as far as it is translated correctly”) is that it likely does not recognize any extant Hebrew or Greek texts to be ‘incorrupt’ and so does not bother to publish an ‘authoritative, uncorrupted’ translation nor to insist on the use of the Joseph Smith translation.

If, for instance…
1 Ne. 13: 26:

And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

…refers to ‘gospels’ yet to be written and ‘covenants’ already written and one (or two or more, I suppose, from an LDS perspective), which I think it does as it speaks in Greek terms to at LEAST one covenant not yet revealed and at LEAST one church not yet established. This seems to further imply that within weeks - surely no more than a month or so - the signature writings of NT authors would have been corrupted by insidious scribes in league with the “great and abominable church” and these altered texts would have been those circulated, even the very oldest which may contain but portions of exact text found in more complete text. One thing about early Christian scribes - they did not copy as if writing sacred texts and were either poor or frugal in that they used whatever papyri they could find or afford - rather like securing from your boss permission to take home trashed single-sided business documents because you can’t afford a ream of Staples brand paper (even on sale).

Yet if you do wish to read Scripture in as original as it gets state, I would begin with some of the texts offered by the United Bible Societies. A decent, but not exhaustive lexicon, and one of the Greek texts of the New Testament. Even if just for a quick check comparison or a word or phrase that may seem puzzling, even having these as a reference are handy.