P
Porknpie
Guest
Wonderful post.
Wonderful news on coming home.
Faith and reason. Aquinas would be proud.
Love the blog idea.
Pork
- Status
Wonderful news on coming home.
Faith and reason. Aquinas would be proud.
Love the blog idea.
Pork
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Thanks (and thanks to all).Wonderful post.
Wonderful news on coming home.
Faith and reason.
Love the blog idea.
Pork
As for the blog, thanks, I had a similar blog for when I was Catholic going to LDS, so it only made sense to make an opposite one
.
T
TheIrishman
Guest
Congrats on finding your faith again. You are an example for a lot of mormons out there trying to find the truth. I appreciate your story
J
johnnyc176
Guest
Welcome back home!
To answer the thread question…quite a few of the mens bible study group I am in are converts to the Catholic Church. There reasons for converting were Truth and the Eucharist.
To answer the thread question…quite a few of the mens bible study group I am in are converts to the Catholic Church. There reasons for converting were Truth and the Eucharist.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
That’s great news! Praise God!
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Haha no I didn’t. I of course had to refresh my memory a little as to how to “do” Confession, and this was a longer than normal one, but it was nice, and the priest offered great counsel as well.
Oh and for good measure, I bought Scott Hahn’s “Lord, Have Mercy-The Healing Power of Confession” (along with his Hail, Holy Queen, Reasons to Believe-How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith, and Many Are Called-Rediscovering the Glory of the Priesthood, to add to my existing Hahn library).
Well there goes any hope of your “true blue” status, huh? 
Good choices all by Hahn. His Rome Sweet Home is one of my favorites.
P
pablope
Guest
Haha no I didn’t. I of course had to refresh my memory a little as to how to “do” Confession, and this was a longer than normal one, but it was nice, and the priest offered great counsel as well.
:extrahappy::harp:
P
Porknpie
Guest
LW-Thanks (and thanks to all).
As for the blog, thanks, I had a similar blog for when I was Catholic going to LDS, so it only made sense to make an opposite one
Please consider posting something to the thread here started to have one place for ex-Mormons on why they left LDS.
Thank you.
B
Becca3
Guest
I am following your blog. I love blogs now. I didn’t used to before. And now I have my own blog as well.Thanks (and thanks to all).
As for the blog, thanks, I had a similar blog for when I was Catholic going to LDS, so it only made sense to make an opposite one
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Very happy for you LW7.
I had posts here with former Catholics now Mormons. When reading their posts and tone, I sensed they were former Catholics. I asked one point blank if he used to be one, and would not answer me.
I have visited Mormon forums for brief moments and saw his name, and he stated he was indeed a former Catholic.
So I wasn’t sure when you first came and wanted to see all sorts of books if you were trolling to get more info to further argue against Catholicism or if you were truly seeking the truth.
So sorry if I was testy to you. So happy for you!
I had posts here with former Catholics now Mormons. When reading their posts and tone, I sensed they were former Catholics. I asked one point blank if he used to be one, and would not answer me.
I have visited Mormon forums for brief moments and saw his name, and he stated he was indeed a former Catholic.
So I wasn’t sure when you first came and wanted to see all sorts of books if you were trolling to get more info to further argue against Catholicism or if you were truly seeking the truth.
So sorry if I was testy to you. So happy for you!
T
twopekinguys
Guest
It took alot of courage for you to go through with it, and I for one am thrilled beyond belief for you.Haha no I didn’t. I of course had to refresh my memory a little as to how to “do” Confession, and this was a longer than normal one, but it was nice, and the priest offered great counsel as well.
Oh and for good measure, I bought Scott Hahn’s “Lord, Have Mercy-The Healing Power of Confession” (along with his Hail, Holy Queen, Reasons to Believe-How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith, and Many Are Called-Rediscovering the Glory of the Priesthood, to add to my existing Hahn library)
Above all, I am thrilled that you can now partake in the Eucharist worthily.
I would really love to hear your feelings on that, once you receive.
I think it will be a perfect end to a tumultuous journey.
Welcome Home, we’ve been waiting for you!! Take off your shoes and stay awhile.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
I’d like to comment on something said in another thread as well:
What I mean by that is that, as I mentioned before, I was somewhat convinced by LDS apologetics, at least on its surface, that Joseph Smith and/or his associates couldn’t have made it all up. Things such as pre-mortal existence, deification, Divine Council, eternal marriage, subordination of the Son to the Father, esoteric rites/mysteries, etc. all are found in some fashion anciently, so after reading the works of FARMS/MI and FAIR, I concluded that Joseph Smith either had a very large library, or he was inspired. I think that many LDS that read apologetic works frequently think along those lines as well.
After awhile, I found that LDS apologetics, while certainly answering various criticisms that are unwarranted and unsustainable (for example, I was never convinced by the “adieu” argument against the Book of Mormon, and don’t think it is relevant), doesn’t provide a coherent picture of the ancient Christianity that they are claiming Joseph Smith restored. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, LDS apologists will pull from over here and over there, here a little, there a little, in the attempt to prove that “the ancient/primitive Church” believed such and such. Instead, the LDS apologists simply are unable to point to an actual, cohesive, organized “ancient/primitive Church” that actually believed said doctrine. There really is no Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints.
I also found, as we saw in the Cumorah thread as an example, that many times, LDS apologetics creates a dichotomy between what LDS prophets and apostles have said and taught, including in General Conferences, and what the actual evidences show. When the actual evidences demonstrate that they were wrong about something, or if something doesn’t fit with the way they would like to present the Church, then we are to take the apologist argument over what the latter day prophets and apostles have stated. An example of that is with where Cumorah is. Another example is with the priesthood restriction on blacks until 1978. LDS will frequently state that we don’t know who, what, where, when, why as to the priesthood restriction. It is not known how it originated. But what we should focus on, and what we do know, is that it’s over. The problem I see with that is that the First Presidency in 1949 said in a letter:
"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”
The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes." ***
So it seems that the First Presidency understood the priesthood restriction quite differently than apologists would have us believe, as well as the Church today. Because the LDS Church does not specifically define and state many things, the apologists are frequently left to opine and define where the Church doesn’t (though it is always amusing when the FAIR wiki will give explanations on various difficulties, then end with “The Church offers no opinion”).
For me, I’d say that I somehow studied my way into the LDS Church, and studied my way out.
What I mean by that is that, as I mentioned before, I was somewhat convinced by LDS apologetics, at least on its surface, that Joseph Smith and/or his associates couldn’t have made it all up. Things such as pre-mortal existence, deification, Divine Council, eternal marriage, subordination of the Son to the Father, esoteric rites/mysteries, etc. all are found in some fashion anciently, so after reading the works of FARMS/MI and FAIR, I concluded that Joseph Smith either had a very large library, or he was inspired. I think that many LDS that read apologetic works frequently think along those lines as well.
After awhile, I found that LDS apologetics, while certainly answering various criticisms that are unwarranted and unsustainable (for example, I was never convinced by the “adieu” argument against the Book of Mormon, and don’t think it is relevant), doesn’t provide a coherent picture of the ancient Christianity that they are claiming Joseph Smith restored. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, LDS apologists will pull from over here and over there, here a little, there a little, in the attempt to prove that “the ancient/primitive Church” believed such and such. Instead, the LDS apologists simply are unable to point to an actual, cohesive, organized “ancient/primitive Church” that actually believed said doctrine. There really is no Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints.
I also found, as we saw in the Cumorah thread as an example, that many times, LDS apologetics creates a dichotomy between what LDS prophets and apostles have said and taught, including in General Conferences, and what the actual evidences show. When the actual evidences demonstrate that they were wrong about something, or if something doesn’t fit with the way they would like to present the Church, then we are to take the apologist argument over what the latter day prophets and apostles have stated. An example of that is with where Cumorah is. Another example is with the priesthood restriction on blacks until 1978. LDS will frequently state that we don’t know who, what, where, when, why as to the priesthood restriction. It is not known how it originated. But what we should focus on, and what we do know, is that it’s over. The problem I see with that is that the First Presidency in 1949 said in a letter:
"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”
The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes." ***
So it seems that the First Presidency understood the priesthood restriction quite differently than apologists would have us believe, as well as the Church today. Because the LDS Church does not specifically define and state many things, the apologists are frequently left to opine and define where the Church doesn’t (though it is always amusing when the FAIR wiki will give explanations on various difficulties, then end with “The Church offers no opinion”).
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
I was also moved to consider orthodox Christianity again when I was reading LDS apologetics on the temple, specifically the Washing and Anointing. I found that LDS have referred to the writings of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, on the anointing ritual, such as here (popular LDS apologist Hugh Nibley has referenced him in his work). On a thread I participated in over at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board on this topic, one poster said that he always appreciated this evidence, believing it to be proof of a restoration, and that the LDS version is pretty much “word perfect” as compared to St. Cyril’s writings. The first problem of course is that because the LDS washing and anointing are done in the temple, unless you’ve gone through them, you’d just have to believe his assessment (or, you could just go on the Internet). The second problem is, it most certainly is nowhere near word perfect. Besides mentioning various body parts and anointing them, there is no other similarity, let alone with the wording. Also, Cyril is talking about the Christmation/Confirmation sacrament/mystery, and not a separate Anointing ritual outside of that, and this is still done to this day in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. There is no evidence that the ancient Christians practiced a “Washing and Anointing” sacrament outside of that of baptism and confirmation.
I also found that many LDS arguments in favor of an apostasy and restoration were flawed. One is the so-called change in the mode of baptism, from immersion to pouring. Ignoring that immersion is also done and accepted by the Catholic Church, Even if there is a “change” in the mode, that does not necessitate an apostasy, evidenced by the LDS Church itself! They have changed the mode of the Washing and Anointing. Prior to 2005, it was done by washing and anointing various body parts (and earlier, apparently it was a full body wash). Now, as I experienced it, it is a “symbolic” washing and anointing, where you receive some water on your forehead, some oil on your head, and the blessings on the various body parts are mentioned, but not specifically washed or anointed by hand. Clearly that is a change in the mode, and the LDS argument would apply here. They probably would respond that those were inspired changes by the Church leaders. Well, why couldn’t the so-called change to pouring baptism be an inspired change? That’s where there argument on that point fails.
So yes, the more I read LDS apologetics, as well as writings outside of apologetic material (including some recommended by an LDS poster over at MDDB), the more I concluded that the LDS Church really isn’t a restoration of an “ancient Church” that the apologists kept alluding to but couldn’t point to, and that the Catholic Church is that same primitive/ancient Church that existed then.
I hope others find this as helpful as I did.
I also found that many LDS arguments in favor of an apostasy and restoration were flawed. One is the so-called change in the mode of baptism, from immersion to pouring. Ignoring that immersion is also done and accepted by the Catholic Church, Even if there is a “change” in the mode, that does not necessitate an apostasy, evidenced by the LDS Church itself! They have changed the mode of the Washing and Anointing. Prior to 2005, it was done by washing and anointing various body parts (and earlier, apparently it was a full body wash). Now, as I experienced it, it is a “symbolic” washing and anointing, where you receive some water on your forehead, some oil on your head, and the blessings on the various body parts are mentioned, but not specifically washed or anointed by hand. Clearly that is a change in the mode, and the LDS argument would apply here. They probably would respond that those were inspired changes by the Church leaders. Well, why couldn’t the so-called change to pouring baptism be an inspired change? That’s where there argument on that point fails.
So yes, the more I read LDS apologetics, as well as writings outside of apologetic material (including some recommended by an LDS poster over at MDDB), the more I concluded that the LDS Church really isn’t a restoration of an “ancient Church” that the apologists kept alluding to but couldn’t point to, and that the Catholic Church is that same primitive/ancient Church that existed then.
I hope others find this as helpful as I did.
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
Hello LivingWaters,
You mention having a blog about your conversion from Catholicism to the LDS. Is that by chance still up and running? If so, would you mind posting a link to it? I think it would be interesting to compare the two (as your new one develops, of course).
Also, out of curiosity, what has the LDS Church said about your reversion? Do you currently hold any callings?
You mention having a blog about your conversion from Catholicism to the LDS. Is that by chance still up and running? If so, would you mind posting a link to it? I think it would be interesting to compare the two (as your new one develops, of course).
Also, out of curiosity, what has the LDS Church said about your reversion? Do you currently hold any callings?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
Those are links to his new blog about his reversion from Mormonism to Catholicism. I’m asking for a link to his older blog about his original conversion from Catholicism to Mormonism in order to compare the two.
B
bcuster
Guest
My grandfather was Mormon and my great grandmother converted from the Mormon religion to Catholicism. If she did not, I would most likely be Mormon. The question that I find compelling is: When Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16 that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against” the Church, do we believe he had the power to fulfill this promise. In other words, was He really God? If Jesus was just one of many gods, then he might have wished that the gates of hell would not prevail, but he (not being the Supreme God) might not have the power to make it so. If Jesus is who he says he is, the Son of the One true God and a member of the Holy Trinity, then he has the power to make it so. So who is Jesus? I believe that He is God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He meant what he said and he had the power to make is so. This makes the Catholic Church the only existing Church that was founded by Jesus and is sustained by His Grace.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Yes it’s still up, I’ll link to it at a later time.
Luckily, my ward was dissolved recently, so we were all released from our callings. I stopped going months ago. Figuring out how to do this while still in my calling was definitely an issue for me, so I definitely felt relieved, and it made this whole thought process a lot easier, when we heard that news.
I
ImLDS
Guest
I was Mormon, became Catholic, and am now coming back to the LDS Church so I may have a unique view. For me it was certain doctrines within the Catholic Church (and some of its history but not really). For starters, purgatory, celibacy (I know its a discipline, not a doctrine), Mary and the Saints, Confession, Hell in the Bible meant sheol or land of the dead not fiery pit (that isn’t just Catholicism), etc. However, once you come to that conclusion that the LDS Church is truth, nothing else really matters. The Spirit has born witness to me I was not on the right path and needed to repent and return to the Church and therefore I am. Before you leave, make sure you know what you’re leaving. That was my mistake.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Welcome IamLDS.
Have you read LW’s story and his extensive research or are you just assuming he hasn’t put in literally hours of prayer, discernment and research.
His journey has been very thoughtful and thorough. Very commendable.
- Status