Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[Eliza10]

It would not matter to me what mormons, jews, muslims, hindus would believe. I would hope that I would never say that I don’t trust a single one. Now of course, I know that you misspoke in that post. But I needed to call you on it… .

Wow. Let it go.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I didn’t realize you are a former Mormon. It makes more than perfect sense that you would be on this forum. I don’t understand why that does not make perfect sense to Dianaiaid. Frankly it also seems to me that she is demoning your intents.

I do feel that there are things to be admired about Mormonism (certainly not the doctrine or the founders!) But I am looking as an outsider - and there is a lot of emphasis on making the outside look good. If I were an insider like you and saw the strings tied to the good things, I might have the same sentiments.

Hi Eliza,

You’re right in taking a look at the “outside” of Mormonism and sometimes finding a lot to admire. But the inside of Mormonism can be rather ugly. From people that I know right here where I live (not Utah) as well as experiences of my daughter (not Mormon) who DOES live in Utah & also has many Mormon friends I can testify to some of the ugliness.

Just as an example ~ a person who was once Mormon who stops going to their meetings is ostracized. This is not a formal thing, and most Mormons will deny it as a policy, but it is common and widespread. Mormons will seek you out if you are an active member, or a potential member ~ then you are seen as a friend or at least a potential friend. But stop going to your meetings and PRESTO you are shunned as if you are evil.

You don’t have to do anything bad to have this happen, you don’t have to be excommunicated formally by the Mormons, you just have to stop regular attendance and you find out all those “friends” you thought you had weren’t friends at all. I have witnessed this myself with people right where I live (there are more Mormons in California than there are in Utah) and seen the pain, hurt & disillusionment it caused.

Former Mormons, ones that convert to another faith, may be particularly problematic to Mormons but many of the Mormons that post to this forum (not all!) characterize any criticism of the Mormon faith as a personal attack, and describe anyone who criticizes Mormon doctrine as an “anti-Mormon”. It’s a reflexive response. They appear to be unwilling or incapable of distinguishing criticism of PEOPLE from criticism of DOCTRINE and they appear to find it inconceivable that there could be any sort of intellectually-based rejection of the Mormon faith.

Those so afflicted have a problem that only they can solve. We can’t fix them, but we can put their names on our “ignore” list and not read their posts, and in so doing not be drawn in to the controversy they appear to be interested in creating here.

 

[mjf001]

Whyme claims to be Mormon AND Catholic. Since you are ignoring his claim to be Catholic and characterize him as a Mormon, then I think I can return the favor.

As to your claim about never saying that the LDS are “stupid, cultich, evil and nasty,” Z…perhaps you should look up the definition of “hypothetical.”

Oh, remind me. What did I say about Pope Benedict having a nefarious motivation?

No Diana, you don’t get it. If he was baptized Catholic, then baptized Mormon, he excommunicated himself. If he returned to the Catholic faith, and continues to publicly or privately espouse beliefs which are contrary to the faith, he is not Catholic.

A Catholic can not believe Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, that the BoM is true, or any of the other Uniquely LDS beliefs. LDS and Catholic are mutually exclusive, it’s one or the other, they both can’t be true.

I hope this finally clears up the matter,
In Christ,
Michael

 

[mjf001]

Let me try to explain this a little further. Saint Therese and Mother Therese both influenced many people of all faiths through their faith and active love. Not one would bash or mock another’s faith. But by their example, they both had tremendous influence on humankind and promoted the catholic way. Now I can also bring into the picture Katherine Drexel and her work among the Indians and African-Americans or Mother Cabrini who did wonderful work with the immigrant community. I don’t remember them bashing anyone of different faiths. But by their example, they promoted the catholic faith through active love.

And I will state it again, I have not promoted mormon doctrine in these threads. I did say that the word of wisdom was a good thing. But is that promoting mormon dogma?

Mormons should spend more time caring for the sick and the poor. But unlike you they don’t have the example of saint therese and mother therese.

You are constantly defending the truth claims of LDS. You have said/implied you think Joseph Smith is a true prophet and you have defended the BoM, saying you won’t deny the witness you received about the truth of the BoM.

 

[mjf001]

I do see it as “speaking the truth”. Obviously you see it differently. She persists in seeing things wrong with Mormonism, you persist in seeing things right with Mormonism. I still say she is speaking the truth.

I’m quoting Eliza, but addressing Diana:
She’s critical of things she sees as incorrect doctrine. As a Catholic, what else would you expect her to do? And, for the record, I have read several posts where she points out the Catholic position on issues, and is not just “bashing” the LDS faith. Perhaps you need to read her post a little more carefully.

Last point, this is the non Catholic religions section of a Catholic Forum. You should expect Catholics, especially the Catholics on this forum who tend to know their faith, to stand up for Catholic doctrine. If you want to discuss agreements with LDS and Catholic, you would have to address some of the things we work on together. On doctrinal issues, that’s most likely not going to happen.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[Eliza10]

I’m quoting Eliza, but addressing Diana:
She’s critical of things she sees as incorrect doctrine. As a Catholic, what else would you expect her to do? And, for the record, I have read several posts where she points out the Catholic position on issues, and is not just “bashing” the LDS faith. Perhaps you need to read her post a little more carefully.

Last point, this is the non Catholic religions section of a Catholic Forum. You should expect Catholics, especially the Catholics on this forum who tend to know their faith, to stand up for Catholic doctrine. If you want to discuss agreements with LDS and Catholic, you would have to address some of the things we work on together. On doctrinal issues, that’s most likely not going to happen.

In Christ,
Michael

Thanks, thats really well said, what you said to Dianaiad. Because I knew her case against Rebecca’s posts wasn’t right, I just didn’t have a handle on what was so wrong with it. But you said it.

 

[PaulDupre]

We have a glorious choir, y’know.

…and Glen Beck.

…and Harry Ried.

(pick your extremist…)

Oh…and BYU IS a tier 1 school.

We live longer, divorce less, and go to church more often than almost everybody else.

We love our spouses, our children, emphasize education and our women exercised full voting rights before any other American women.

We do not go around saying that “there is nothing positive” about any other faith.

Diana, please learn to distinguish between Mormon people and Mormonism. One of the things that makes Mormons come across as nut-jobs is that they always interpret disagreement with their doctrines as an attack on them personally, and respond to disagreement with their doctrines by defending their personal integrity. Weird.

 

[Eliza10]

Hi Eliza,

You’re right in taking a look at the “outside” of Mormonism and sometimes finding a lot to admire. But the inside of Mormonism can be rather ugly. From people that I know right here where I live (not Utah) as well as experiences of my daughter (not Mormon) who DOES live in Utah & also has many Mormon friends I can testify to some of the ugliness…

My brother’s family in Phoenix moved from a Mormon neighborhood because his wife who grew up in Phoenix said the Mormons who befriend you would you shun when they realize you wouldn’t convert, and she didn’t want her kids going thru that as they got older. Therefore as I began to spend more time with my Mormon friend, I asked her if this was so, since I was not going to be converting. She assured me that would never happen.

Whats your take on that?

“Gothardism” is similar to Mormonism in that there is a real strong focus on looking good on the outside. “Gothardite” is a name is coined by outsiders, because Gothard doesn’t want his name associated with his teachings which he says are simply God’s ways/words/principles. Then he’d have to answer to outsiders adn he feels entittled not to. He is a hero within his group of beleivers/folowers/devotees.

For Gothardism think Duggar family; they are Gothard followers, having attended the hugely attended brainwashing seminars of “Basic Institute in Life Principles”, and even packing up the large family for annual Gothard conventions/seminars, and using their ATI homeschool program. But they would insist, as Gothard teaches them to, that they are just plain Christian, following God’s principles, and would not mention his name even though they are living the entire lifestyle he teaches, skirts and long curled hair and all.

So I think I am finding the very same thing with Mormonism and Gothardism, that with many steeped in it, brainswashed into how to think about their religion, there is no discussion.

Another thing they offer is support for families, and a formula for living with a large family, and the offer of fellowship for other adherants of their family. Fmaily support and fellowship are good things to find in a society that that is hard to find in.

But both don’t teach the whole truth, only part of it, so problems result such as you have seen with Mormonism and I have seen with Gothardism. With both, if you are not a “poster child” for that lifestyle, those religions can be more suffering than support. i.e., the Duggers would be the poster family for Gothardism. A friend’s sister in Utah, who is at the end of childbearing time and always wanted a family but the couple has proved infertile, has stopped practising her husbands Mormon religion, because it was too painful and there didn’t seem to be a place for a childess wife there.

Just as an example ~ a person who was once Mormon who stops going to their meetings is ostracized. This is not a formal thing, and most Mormons will deny it as a policy, but it is common and widespread. Mormons will seek you out if you are an active member, or a potential member ~ then you are seen as a friend or at least a potential friend. But stop going to your meetings and PRESTO you are shunned as if you are evil. .

I wonder if that is why my friend is so extremely (compulsively) faithful bout her meetings. But she wants to remain a member in good standing and this is what is required.

You don’t have to do anything bad to have this happen, you don’t have to be excommunicated formally by the Mormons, you just have to stop regular attendance and you find out all those “friends” you thought you had weren’t friends at all. I have witnessed this myself with people right where I live (there are more Mormons in California than there are in Utah) and seen the pain, hurt & disillusionment it caused…

Oh, I see. I have seen the same thing with Gothardism.

Former Mormons, ones that convert to another faith, may be particularly problematic to Mormons but many of the Mormons that post to this forum (not all!) characterize any criticism of the Mormon faith as a personal attack, and describe anyone who criticizes Mormon doctrine as an “anti-Mormon”. It’s a reflexive response. They appear to be unwilling or incapable of distinguishing criticism of PEOPLE from criticism of DOCTRINE and they appear to find it inconceivable that there could be any sort of intellectually-based rejection of the Mormon faith. .

Yes, this is what I have seen too.

Those so afflicted have a problem that only they can solve. We can’t fix them, but we can put their names on our “ignore” list and not read their posts, and in so doing not be drawn in to the controversy they appear to be interested in creating here.

I put a name on my ignore list in the past, but I don’t know how that works. If I put “J.Smith” on my ignore list, does that simply mean they can’t private message me? Or does it mean when I am reading a thread, anything “J.Smith” writes will be deleted from my eyes; and I’ll skip from post number #52 to post number #53, i.e. Which could possibly make some threads hard to follow. I am wondering how that works.

“The less people use their minds the right way, the more opinionated they become.” Fr. George Rutler .

I like that one. It fits here.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

because we live in a secular multicultural society, we tolerate demonstrably false and therefore harmful religions and cults. i would include mormonism as one of these. to me, the fact that our society takes religion as something beyond or apart from reason makes religion irrelevant and fits perfectly with the secular mindset that truth is what we make of it.

if we by our law prevent false advertising, we should by the same logic prevent false religions. at some point, we should apply reason using all of the scientific and historical evidence to weed out those religions which are clearly and undeniably false.

I think it is our job as catholics to bring to the public sphere a vigorous debate on religion and philosophy. we shouldn’t be afraid to ask tough questions to those who hold to false religions.

 

[dianaiad]

Yeah, yeah yeah. But how many Prophets went to BYU?

All joking aside, the Y is a good school. Maybe not as good as the U but still a good school.

Had I been able to afford it I would have heavily considered the Y.

Leaving aside natural bias (as you SHOULD be biased towards your alma mater!) BYU still is higher in the hierarchy than the U.

Though both are Tier 1 schools. All I can do is grump in envy, because I didn’t graduate from either one of 'em.

 

[dianaiad]

I do see it as “speaking the truth”. Obviously you see it differently. She persists in seeing things wrong with Mormonism, you persist in seeing things right with Mormonism. I still say she is speaking the truth.

Ok, then I don’t get the problem. Is there some rule that criticism that you think is truth is no longer criticism?

 

[dianaiad]

No Diana, you don’t get it. If he was baptized Catholic, then baptized Mormon, he excommunicated himself. If he returned to the Catholic faith, and continues to publicly or privately espouse beliefs which are contrary to the faith, he is not Catholic.

A Catholic can not believe Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, that the BoM is true, or any of the other Uniquely LDS beliefs. LDS and Catholic are mutually exclusive, it’s one or the other, they both can’t be true.

I hope this finally clears up the matter,
In Christ,
Michael

I thought it was 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic?" That is, if a Catholic leaves the church for another, and then returns, does he need to be rebaptized? Is there something he or she needs to do other than to simply start coming to Mass, go to confession and begin living his chosen religion again?

That’s true about Mormonism, by the way; simply leaving and joining another church isn’t the same thing as excommunication, by any means. I didn’t think it was the same for Catholics–though I admit I could be wrong about that.

On the other hand, I don’t get where you think I needed to have anything ‘cleared up.’ I simply said that since Whyme claims to be both Catholic AND LDS, but that the Catholics want to ignore his claim to be Catholic and assume that he is entirely LDS, then I can return the favor; by the same sort of logic I can ignore his claim to be LDS and assume that he is Catholic only.

What he actually is, though…is what he is. If that confuses the rest of us, that’s our problem.

 

[ParkerD]

Dee Dee King,
If you would like a vigorous debate on religion and philosophy and the historicity of your religion, I would be willing to participate as my time allows, but you had better be prepared for it to be vigorous in every way, and if scientific reasoning and evidence are going to set the standard, then your first required evidence will be to scientifically prove one of your key beliefs which should certainly be provable by science and was one of the key differences that led to the Reformation. You submit that proof, and the “debate” can continue. Otherwise, such a debate would be nonsensical because you would have already violated your key assumption.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

then your first required evidence will be to scientifically prove one of your key beliefs which should certainly be provable by science and was one of the key differences that led to the Reformation

there are religions that differ in theological opinion like protestantism vs. catholicism vs. judiasm. there is nothing demonstrably false about any of them i.e. they can’t be shown without doubt to be based on a scam. this is not the case with mormonism and scientology. you’re religion belives that jews came to america with horses, chariots, steel, iron, brass, …etc. and that the book of abraham is inspired. both of these tenants can be shown to be totally false scientifically and historically. when you put all of the evidence together about mormonism, it’s beyond a doubt a false religion created by a false prophet who was a know swindler and adulterer.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m quoting Eliza, but addressing Diana:
She’s critical of things she sees as incorrect doctrine. As a Catholic, what else would you expect her to do? And, for the record, I have read several posts where she points out the Catholic position on issues, and is not just “bashing” the LDS faith. Perhaps you need to read her post a little more carefully.

Last point, this is the non Catholic religions section of a Catholic Forum. You should expect Catholics, especially the Catholics on this forum who tend to know their faith, to stand up for Catholic doctrine. If you want to discuss agreements with LDS and Catholic, you would have to address some of the things we work on together. On doctrinal issues, that’s most likely not going to happen.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, I simply pointed out two things, in response to her claim that she was NOT critical of the Mormons (or rather, that my claim that she was constantly critical was just in my head–in my dreams, or 'you wish…"). Since she claimed that she was not constantly critical of the church, I did the research.

If I had been wrong, I would have said so and apologized. I have done that before. However, she is constantly critical of the church, of the culture, of the members; she seldom, if ever, can bring herself to say anything positive about Mormons in any way. At the same time, I also mentioned that she seldom crosses the line into ‘anti-’ hood, but remains, for the most part, a simple critic.

Critics are people who do not agree with some aspect of a target system, and say so honestly and even sometimes with strong language. I have no problems with critics. They do not intentionally lie, they do not intentionally mock, demean or degrade. If they are incorrect about something, it’s not deliberate. As obdurate and critical as Rebecca can be, she very seldom acts like an anti.

…and that’s quite a compliment, coming from me.

However, and this is a very big 'however," I don’t see that I have to pretend that she isn’t critical and doesn’t like either the doctrine or the culture—and I do not have to let her get away with claiming that she approves of either, or that she isn’t constantly vocal in her criticism of both.

What I really don’t get is this sense of outrage she and others seem to have because I have identified her as a critic and actually say so. Is it something to be ashamed of?

 

[ParkerD]

there are religions that differ in theological opinion like protestantism vs. catholicism vs. judiasm. there is nothing demonstrably false about any of them i.e. they can’t be shown without doubt to be based on a scam. this is not the case with mormonism and scientology. you’re religion belives that jews came to america with horses, chariots, steel, iron, brass, …etc. and that the book of abraham is inspired. both of these tenants can be shown to be totally false scientifically and historically. when you put all of the evidence together about mormonism, it’s beyond a doubt a false religion created by a false prophet who was a know swindler and adulterer.

Dee Dee King,
So go ahead and scientifically prove and demonstrate that the eucharist becomes what your religion says that it becomes. If you want a debate about that, then the debate will start, and it will be as vigorous as you want it to be.

 

[Religio71]

I thought it was 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic?" That is, if a Catholic leaves the church for another, and then returns, does he need to be rebaptized? Is there something he or she needs to do other than to simply start coming to Mass, go to confession and begin living his chosen religion again?

That’s true about Mormonism, by the way; simply leaving and joining another church isn’t the same thing as excommunication, by any means. I didn’t think it was the same for Catholics–though I admit I could be wrong about that.

On the other hand, I don’t get where you think I needed to have anything ‘cleared up.’ I simply said that since Whyme claims to be both Catholic AND LDS, but that the Catholics want to ignore his claim to be Catholic and assume that he is entirely LDS, then I can return the favor; by the same sort of logic I can ignore his claim to be LDS and assume that he is Catholic only.

What he actually is, though…is what he is. If that confuses the rest of us, that’s our problem.

Hi Diana,

When someone leaves Catholicism for another faith, that is considered apostasy. So for these people to be received back into full communion with the Church, they will have to go to confession, and make a Profession of Faith. Catholicism does not rebaptize, as one baptism causes a permanent change in the soul. This is why it is said “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”, as this mark on the soul is there for eternity.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, please learn to distinguish between Mormon people and Mormonism. One of the things that makes Mormons come across as nut-jobs is that they always interpret disagreement with their doctrines as an attack on them personally, and respond to disagreement with their doctrines by defending their personal integrity. Weird.

The thing that makes Mormons the way they are is their religion, Paul. If the MoTab Choir is great, it’s because the singers IN it are great–and committed to both their faith and their calling as choir members.

If BYU is a top tier school, it is because the standards of academic achievement and behavior keep it that way—and because it is an LDS private university. Unless you want to claim that Yale and other Catholic schools are even higher on that academic ladder IN SPITE of the religion that supports them?

If Mormons live longer (we do) and divorce less, it’s BECAUSE THEY ARE MORMON; because they live their religion. If the rate of unwed births in Utah is the lowest in the nation, it’s generally attributed to Mormons living their religion. If it is among the bottom ten states in the nation in terms of women under 20 having babies, that is generally attributed to Mormons living their religion.

You simply cannot completely divorce any culture from the belief system that supports it, Paul.

That said, I have always been very careful to say “Mormons and Mormonism” when I talk about those who criticize, not just one or the other.

I am far more likely to pay attention, and converse, with someone who acknowledges the virtues of a people while disagreeing with the beliefs of that people. Someone who can see no virtue in either is too hopelessly biased to be anything but a tilting dummy.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Leaving aside natural bias (as you SHOULD be biased towards your alma mater!) BYU still is higher in the hierarchy than the U.

Though both are Tier 1 schools. All I can do is grump in envy, because I didn’t graduate from either one of 'em.

I’ll grant you that the Y is higher ranked in the relative when, but the U rules in the positive now.

 

[MelanieAnne]

My brother’s family in Phoenix moved from a Mormon neighborhood because his wife who grew up in Phoenix said the Mormons who befriend you would you shun when they realize you wouldn’t convert, and she didn’t want her kids going thru that as they got older. Therefore as I began to spend more time with my Mormon friend, I asked her if this was so, since I was not going to be converting. She assured me that would never happen.

Whats your take on that?

Obviously there are exceptions, as I am not Mormon and will never be converting, and yet I have Mormon friends, some going back over 40 years. But many people posting to this forum have also posted similar “shunning” experiences, so the fact that it is very common is well known. It is not official Mormon policy so when a Mormon asserts that it “never” happens, they may be referring to official policy.

I put a name on my ignore list in the past, but I don’t know how that works. If I put “J.Smith” on my ignore list, does that simply mean they can’t private message me? Or does it mean when I am reading a thread, anything “J.Smith” writes will be deleted from my eyes; and I’ll skip from post number #52 to post number #53, i.e. Which could possibly make some threads hard to follow. I am wondering how that works.

The “ignore” feature works as you have described as skipping posts. The post is still there, numbered in sequence, but the program does not display text of the post. You have the option of viewing it or removing the name you have on ignore from the ignore list. It can make some threads a little difficult to follow but you can usually get the gist of things. I’ve just found that many of these controversies are endless and life is too short to tediously repeat same thing over and over to the same posters, many of whom appear to be rather single-minded in their approach as well as highly resistant to any opinion other than their own. I have been accused of being “afraid” of such posters, but that’s not the case at all. I am not afraid, I am merely unwilling to spend any time or resources on endless, pointless argument and yet that appears to be the only thing that some posters are interested in. As a result, after a while, most end up on my “ignore” list.

In addition, as you have no doubt noted, disagreement with the doctrines of the Mormon faith will often elicit hostility from its adherents, those who are either unable or unwilling to distinguish disagreement about doctrine from intolerance of people. Such persons often fall into the “single-minded in their approach as well as highly resistant to any opinion other than their own” category, so “discussion” with such persons is often an exercise in futility.

I like that one. It fits here.

That quote of Fr. Rutler’s in my signature has many applications both within this forum as well as outside of it. For example, it has a very definite application to politics. There is a tendency within the populace to substitute slogans and opinions for the search for TRUTH, which is often more difficult and time-consuming. That is unfortunate and leads to a great deal of uninformed opinions. And yet is is often just as pointless to have a discussion about a political issue with such persons as it is to have a discussion about religious doctrine with some posters to this forum. Many people who are uninformed, yet highly opinionated, about a political issue will cling tenaciously to that opinion regardless of the facts. It can be rather frustrating to try to discuss anything with them.

A corollary to the quote in my signature is the tendency of some people & groups to shout down those with whom they disagree. Lacking information & a sound basis for dialog, they instead resort to noise and sometimes violence to drown out/marginalize the opposition. Unfortunately we can see examples of such behavior on TV on a regular basis. This is not democracy, this is an example of tyranny in the making. Nazi Germany is a prime example of where such tactics were widely used. If we are wise, and I’m not sure enough of us are, we will step back from this tendency.