Why are Mormons so happy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SacredHeartBassist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why is my 7 month year old son happy? He must possess the fullness of the truth…
 
gazelam said:
Catholics that are knowledgeable and charitable have a different opinion of Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...
I like to consider myself both (perhaps that’s arrogant of me) and I always thought Joseph Smith was just another one of those Second Great Awakening “prophets” who were slightly off the beam, and that Brigham Young was actually the brains behind the entire Mormon church and it wouldn’t have existed without him.
 
Limoncello4021 said:
Agree. This is what “knowledgeable and charitable” people believe about Joseph Smith? Too funny!
Click to expand...
I do not know who you are and I do not know if you intend to come across as mocking, but you do.
Do you realize the “bunk” that was “Too funny” was writing by a Catholic author?
I will offer you a little in response to your other post.

The belief that the CoJCoLDS is so ridiculous it can be dismissed out of hand is a product of prejudice and/or ignorance. In addition to Stephen H. Webb and Father Jordan Vajda who are Catholics who have already been references, there is this article from two Evangelical Scholars:
Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?

Let me share with you two things. The most difficult and most “ridiculous” thing I believe is that God the Father sent God the Son to pay the price for my sins. Scripture tells us that a sinless man was tortured and killed so that my sins can be forgiven. There is something BEYOND understanding here that all Christians accept. But, there is nothing so difficult to put our human understanding of morality, forgiveness, and justice around as this. Nothing that is uniquely LDS, nothing that is uniquely Catholic. This is the pinnacle of difficult things IMO.
As a LDS I must recognize weird things with the translation of the BOM as you mention. I have never had experiences like these in my life. Of course I have never seen staffs turn to snakes or bring forth water out of the ground. I have never seen donkeys talk or lots communicate the will of God.
As a Catholic I would have to embrace the Trinity. A doctrine fought over for centuries. I would need to embrace some MYSTERY in its exact formulation OR I would need to only define it “via negativa.” The Trinity is not modalism, the Trinity is not tritheism, the Trinity is not …; but there is no rational conception of the Trinity that can be embraced. I have read Ludwig Ott and Edward Fessar and … nothing satisfies the purely rational mind.
As a LDS, I am a Social Trinitarian and I think this is more Biblical anyway.
I do not exalt human rationality as some Catholic posters here seem to do, but I consider the gospel I embrace to be the RATIONAL choice and I say that having tried to understand what is truly necessary to be a Catholic.
It is easy to make the CoJCoLDS look ridiculous. It is easy to make Catholicism look ridiculous.
And as I have been saying for around 1-2 years, Catholics better hope that Pope Francis does not make Catholicism acceptable. If Catholicism changes so much that it becomes acceptable, it will surely not be the radical gospel Christ left on this Earth when He departed after his post resurrection sojourn. Cardinal Newman was correct that one of the marks of a true gospel is the derision with which it is treated by the world (and Cardinal Newman specifically mentioned the CoJCoLDS when he made this comment so you can know that he meant the crap said about the CoJCoLDS when he said it).
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do know it was written by a Catholic author. However, I found the paternalistic comment from the poster plus the Laudatory comment on Joseph Smith equally funny. Smith was a charleton, a religious fraud in the best sense of the American long tradition of such. I’m a student of 19th century religious history in America and have read quite a bit about Smith.
 
Thank you, but I didn’t ask about the conception per se. I’d asked about the manner in which Christ was conceived: was it an act of the power of the Holy Spirit - a supernatural act, or was it a sexual union as in the natural way that all men are conceived?
 
Limoncello4021 said:
Yes, I do know it was written by a Catholic author. However, I found the paternalistic comment from the poster plus the Laudatory comment on Joseph Smith equally funny. Smith was a charleton, a religious fraud in the best sense of the American long tradition of such. I’m a student of 19th century religious history in America and have read quite a bit about Smith.
Click to expand...
I am a student of the CoJCoLDS in the 19th – 21st century and the Catholic Church in the 1st-5th and 19th -21st centuries (with a little from Trent and the Reformation). I have read quite a bit about both our churches. I have read far more from anti-Mormon authors than I have from anti-Catholic authors.
I do not believe Joseph Smith was a charlatan.
I do believe someone in the local Roman church in the 3rd or 4th century wrote a document that PRETENDED to be written by Clement of Rome. In it the author claimed that Peter selected Clement to be his successor. This is kind of weird because the MODERN Catholic Church believes that Linus then Cletus then Clement succeeded Peter. But, it turns out the local Roman church for many centuries claimed that Clement was the first bishop of Rome and stood in the line of Peter so this fraudulent document aligns with what they claimed at the time.
I put this evidence of charlatan-ness beside whatever you think you see in Joseph Smith. I do not agree that history makes a strong case for Joseph Smith being a charlatan. (I do not even think there is much in history to suggest that the Papacy is the product of evil men doing evil things, but history does not support that humans knew at the time that Peter’s authority would pass through the Bishops of Rome until the second coming of Christ this either developed as guided by God somehow OR was “usurpation” – to use the word of a 2nd – 3rd century ECF).
Over a short period of time, Joseph Smith came to know that he was selected by God to “restore” God’s church and lead it on earth. After his death in part due to a visionary experience shared by many, most of the church realized that Brigham Young was his successor. It took centuries for Christians to believe that the Bishop of Rome was the PRIME successor of St. Peter. And almost half (if not more than half if you include Protestantism) rejected this claim of primacy.
I think it is too easy to make Catholicism and the CoJCoLDS look silly. I strongly suspect that such portraits have little to do with God’s truth. That being said, I choose to weigh positive and negative evidence. I just find the sentiment expressed by most Catholic posters here that Joseph Smith is clearly a fraud and it is ridiculous to believe the CoJCoLDS is God’s Church to be profoundly ignorant or profoundly uncharitable or both.
Charity, TOm
 
I’m not arguing that he’s a fraud because I think he could have genuinely believed to some extent in what he was doing, even if I personally think he was suffering from a mental disturbance or just got a little too into the idea of having dreams and visions like other members of his family.

Howver, you are not going to get any good Catholic to “believe the CoJCoLDS is God’s Church”. We seem to frequently get non-Catholic, non-Orthodox religions on here asserting that they are “God’s Church” and expecting us devout Catholics to concede that maybe they could be. Sorry, but no. I can concede that maybe devout practitioners of these non-Catholic, non-Orthodox religions believe that their church is God’s Church, but this does not make it true, and it isn’t true.
 
Last edited:
SacredHeartBassist said:
if Catholics possess the truth and Mormons don’t why are they so happy
Click to expand...
Mormonism is a good example of religion gone (and done) right. Not quite gone perfect, but definitely gone right.

As Christ said: judge the tree by its fruits. Well, mormons’ visible happiness is the obvious fruit of the quality and sincerity of their religion.

Having said that, there is such a thing as being too happy, because happiness can be a trap. I think perhaps some mormons are at risk of falling into this trap. Some of them are perhaps a little too spiritually comfortable. (But then so are many Catholics and members of other denominations and religions.) Point is, while happiness is a beautiful thing, we shouldn’t make it the ultimate litmus test of a religion’s quality.

As for the truth, well… 🙂
 
Tis_Bearself,
Thank you for your comment. Someday I may ask you about the first part of your comment, but mostly I want to embrace and slightly correct your second part.
Tis_Bearself said:
Howver, you are not going to get any good Catholic to “believe the CoJCoLDS is God’s Church”. We seem to frequently get non-Catholic, non-Orthodox religions on here asserting that they are “God’s Church” and expecting us devout Catholics to concede that maybe they could be. Sorry, but no. I can concede that maybe devout practitioners of these non-Catholic, non-Orthodox religions believe that their church is God’s Church, but this does not make it true, and it isn’t true.
Click to expand...
It is not my position that “good Catholics” here should “believe the CoJCoLDS is God’s Church.” It is my position that a read of the evidence that is moderately unbiased results in a recognition that those who embrace the Catholic Church should not claim that it is blatantly ridiculous to believe in the CoJCoLDS. Setting the evidences and difficulties of the CoJCoLDS beside the evidence and difficulties of the Catholic Church should for the Catholic IMO result in a win for Catholicism (just as it results in a win for the CoJCoLDS IMO). But as one who embraces the miracles of the restoration (LDS) and the miracle of Christ’s atonement for my sins (Christian), I do not believe things like Newman’s theory of Doctrinal Development sans Revelation, the explanations for Papal Infallibility, the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist, …(Catholic) are evidence that it is blatantly ridiculous to be Catholic. To believe this IMO would be to either be ignorant of the explanations offered by Newman, Catholic Answers, and … OR to be so biased and uncharitable when I weigh the evidence for and against Catholicism that I should be seeking God’s forgiveness rather than pontificating about the evils of a religions I reject.
So, I am not here telling Catholics they must bow to the evidence and become LDS. My position is that the way the CoJCoLDS is presented by anti-Mormon’s here is either uninformed, uncharitable, dishonest, or all of these. I have spent years responding to anti-Catholics who present Catholicism in the same light as folks here present the CoJCoLDS. My goal is to avoid that in my presentation while I respond to that from the anti-Mormons and continue to call for better.
Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
“A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation”
Click to expand...
What an awesome quote. I’d not read it before, so I searched for it and quickly discovered that it is from Joseph Smith himself. Even though I’m not LDS, this quote confirms to me once again that the man was a genuine prophet. Thanks for contributing this.
 
didnt you people watch cnn documentary on mormons committing suicide,with some families disowning their own children ,because they went wayward .i felt so bad for those kids,disowned by by their own families .instead,of helping get back into correct path,they abandoned them .beware of them .they only help non mormon victims of calamities ,if theyre considering converting .one time ,they infiltrated a catholic version of habitat for community in the philippines .instead of them helping catholic building homes for the less fortunate ,they begun proselytizing catholic volunteers.fortunately,their evil action were discovered and they were booted out!
 
kainosktisis said:
Thank you, but I didn’t ask about the conception per se. I’d asked about the manner in which Christ was conceived: was it an act of the power of the Holy Spirit - a supernatural act, or was it a sexual union as in the natural way that all men are conceived?
Click to expand...
supernatural
 
I would stop short of calling it “ridiculous” on this forum because I feel that would violate the TOS rule that we’re supposed to treat other religions with respect. If I were to use a word like that, there are quite a few Christian but non-Catholic churches that I would find even more incredulous than LDS.
 
I was advised to watch a YouTube video called Stonecutter by some Mormon, as a Catholic should I watch it???
 
We’re not here to police your viewing habits. If you think you can watch a Youtube video that may be promoting another faith or critical of Catholicism without it harming your own faith, then you can watch it. If on the other hand you think such a video might influence you to doubt or leave the Church, then don’t watch it. You need to develop your conscience and make decisions for yourself on what to spend your time watching.
 
Mormons have an earth based religion. They work very hard to build strong families and communities. They believe, IBO, in working their way to heaven.

If you want to see joyful Catholics, go to the Dominican Sisters of Nashville’s convents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top