Why Should a Mormon Become Catholic?

[LivingWaters7]

WOW!!! Thanks boomerang, never heard that one and it is pretty interesting. There’s more to the article than what you captured because it continues onto the next page, just thought I would tell you. From which we get:

contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/YWJ/id/11790/rec/3

And apparently that was in the person’s patriarchal blessing (as I see mentioned in FAIR’s response to the matter), which, as I’m sure you know, is regarded as a personal prophecy, guidance from God. Imagine if you received a patriarchal blessing saying that you would preach the Gospel to the inhabitants of Venus!

 

[Quaesitor]

And apparently that was in the person’s patriarchal blessing (as I see mentioned in FAIR’s response to the matter), which, as I’m sure you know, is regarded as a personal prophecy, guidance from God. Imagine if you received a patriarchal blessing saying that you would preach the Gospel to the inhabitants of Venus!

that was a shocker for me too.

 

[Quaesitor]

and how about this from Brigham Young where he claims there is life on the Sun, under section 271 in the Journal of Discourses:

Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed “the man in the moon,” and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/13/31#271
From BYU website (find page 271): contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9608/rec/13

 

[LivingWaters7]

If LDS take great comfort in temples, in order to help them consider the Catholic Church, perhaps point out the beautiful old churches that we have. My understanding is that LDS go to temples, in part, to be in close communion with God, and that the decor in a temple helps to elevate one’s mind toward God and Eternity. Older, more ornate Catholic churches do that, too.

I agree.

LDS go to temples, yes, to be in close communion with God (it is believed that His Spirit is present there, and is the House of the Lord, a very sacred place), but also for special sacred ordinances only performed there, such as the Endowment, Sealing (eternal marriage), and proxy ordinances for the deceased.

I think that much of what many LDS enjoy about the temple can be found in Catholic churches, cathedrals, and basilicas. All are regarded as sacred places where God’s presence really is found in a special way, and where sacred mysteries (sacraments) are celebrated. I really have been struck by how, when LDS apologists attempt to demonstrate that the LDS temples have many similarities to ancient Jewish and Christian worship, they many times rely on books and articles that are talking about Catholic and Orthodox worship, such as Margaret Barker’s book on temple themes in Christian worship. I find the importance of sacrifice in Catholic worship as placing it in direct continuity with the ancient temples, as opposed to the LDS temple.

Eternal families-I’m sure that is a draw to the LDS, but we get so much more in the Catholic understanding of our families and eternity. We have our loved ones, but we also now see the rest of our family, the human family, that we all are a part of. I’m excited about that!

The way LDS think about this is that others perform weddings “till death do you part” (or, as a Catholic friend told me at a wedding I went to recently, “so long you shall live”), and so you won’t have that special relationship with your spouse and children in the afterlife, and that everyone will be in the same relationship with each other. On the other hand, there are obvious logistical issues with the sealing of families together (so if I’m sealed to my mom and dad, then become sealed to my wife and kids, what eternal family unit will I be part of?), where it probably would end up not being how it is imagined.

Prophets-we have the security of the authority of the Holy Father. No difference except, if I understand correctly, everything the LDS prophet says is supposed to be doctrine, whereas in the CC only matters of faith and morals. The CC allows for a lot more free expression of our individual personalities and pursuing our particular charisms, if you ask me.

Well, the issue of what exactly an LDS prophet says is supposed to be doctrine is complicated, and they don’t provide an actual way to know if what they teach at one point could be rejected later (as seems to be the case at times). What LDS find comfort in is believing that there are prophets on the earth today just like in the Bible (indeed, this is a draw to the LDS Church, at least it was for me). Mormons believe that their Church is guided by God, is guided by revelation, etc. Catholics also believe that their Church is guided by God, and that the leaders can be inspired by God in their decisions. One major difference I see is that Catholics believe that this Divine guidance has always been there from the beginning, and through God’s involvement in the Church, it couldn’t possibly have fallen away/apostatized.

 

[gazelam]

So I hesitated posting this thread, but thought, what the heck.

For the past few days, I’ve been really feeling a “pull” towards just getting up, going to the local parish, going to Confession/Reconciliation, repenting, and becoming Catholic again. Seeing all of my Scott Hahn books on the shelf isn’t helping either (especially his latest, Consuming the Word: The New Testament and the Eucharist in the Early Church, which is fantastic). I dunno, it might happen soon…

Anyway, many Mormons have misconceptions about the Catholic Church, its doctrines, history, and practices. Many also find great comfort in certain LDS beliefs, such as:

-temples and eternal families
-prophets, revelation from God to man (including personal revelation), church guided by revelation, Heaven not being “closed” (in their view)
-apostles, priesthood
-“one true church”

So, the point of this thread is to talk about what is it about Catholicism that should cause Mormons to pause, get out of their comfort zone, and look at the Catholic Church? Both churches claim to be the One True Church. They both can’t be right (maybe both are wrong! but we’ll skip that). Many Mormons are familiar with a story (I’m giving this off the top of my head) of how a Catholic (maybe it was a priest) said to a Mormon that either the LDS Church is right (and that a restoration of Christ’s Church was needed) or the Catholic Church is right (and Christ’s Church continues to exist since He established it, never needing a restoration). Various LDS apologetic books include that story, then go on to investigate the LDS viewpoint. This thread is therefore about the Catholic viewpoint, whether it’s about the apostasy (or lack thereof), specific doctrines (including the nature of God), sacraments, etc. Why should a Mormon look at a Catholicism, and go so far as to convert, especially when they find comfort and really believe the things I listed above?

Let’s keep it civil (and no “because it’s true” or “because Joseph Smith was a liar and a charlatan”), especially for the LDS lurkers that may be curious!

LW7,
Please accept my humblest apologies for this slightly off topic response. I can imagine you’re experiencing a degree of spiritual anguish currently. I hope that some day you’ll experience a degree of spiritual satisfaction. My favorite LDS author is Truman Madsen. He wrote an essay called “Twenty Questions” which is included in his book “Christ and the Inner Life” published in 1978. (I’ve searched for it on-line and can only find references to it, but cannot find the essay text.) This essay recounts an experience Dr. Madsen had where someone contacted him looking to reconcile his LDS faith with his recent university experience. Dr. Madsen asked him several “yes or no” questions “designed to see if you have really been subject to the dynamic currents of the church”, i.e., experienced different types of spiritual experiences. Dr. Madsen noted that he himself would have answered “yes” to most of the questions while the doubter mostly answered “no”. Dr. Madsen then writes…

‘So the difference between you and me is not so much the various enterprises we have studied, or sought to master in the world; the difference is that I have had some experiences you haven’t had. And that mean you are not are not about to leave the Church, as you say. You have never really been in it.!’
Well, he resented that and told me that he had several standard quorum awards and other such gold stars on his forehead as evidence of really being in.
But, I said, ‘No, the Church’s flowing powers have not really been in you, whatever the geography of your Sunday afternoons.’

Dr. Madsen then proceeds to describe the types of experiences in his essay. So I offer this essay in case there’s an aspect of the LDS faith you were previously unaware of that you may want to reexamine. Good luck in your search.

 

[TexanKnight]

LW7,
Please accept my humblest apologies for this slightly off topic response. I can imagine you’re experiencing a degree of spiritual anguish currently. I hope that some day you’ll experience a degree of spiritual satisfaction. My favorite LDS author is Truman Madsen. He wrote an essay called “Twenty Questions” which is included in his book “Christ and the Inner Life” published in 1978. (I’ve searched for it on-line and can only find references to it, but cannot find the essay text.) This essay recounts an experience Dr. Madsen had where someone contacted him looking to reconcile his LDS faith with his recent university experience. Dr. Madsen asked him several “yes or no” questions “designed to see if you have really been subject to the dynamic currents of the church”, i.e., experienced different types of spiritual experiences. Dr. Madsen noted that he himself would have answered “yes” to most of the questions while the doubter mostly answered “no”. Dr. Madsen then writes…

‘So the difference between you and me is not so much the various enterprises we have studied, or sought to master in the world; the difference is that I have had some experiences you haven’t had. And that mean you are not are not about to leave the Church, as you say. You have never really been in it.!’
Well, he resented that and told me that he had several standard quorum awards and other such gold stars on his forehead as evidence of really being in.
But, I said, ‘No, the Church’s flowing powers have not really been in you, whatever the geography of your Sunday afternoons.’

Dr. Madsen then proceeds to describe the types of experiences in his essay. So I offer this essay in case there’s an aspect of the LDS faith you were previously unaware of that you may want to reexamine. Good luck in your search.

it is not as hard as you might think. When Mormons like you cannot even respond to the questions on cumorah and many versions of the vision, etc. it shows your church is nothing but a false church following a false prophet.

once you accept that truth, it is actually easy

 

[gracepoole]

it is not as hard as you might think. When Mormons like you cannot even respond to the questions on cumorah and many versions of the vision, etc. it shows your church is nothing but a false church following a false prophet.

once you accept that truth, it is actually easy

See, now this seems completely and unnecessarily uncharitable. Why slam another’s faith? Why put her or him on trial for not being the token Mormon in some other thread? If I were LDS, this post would be enough to ensure that I never responded to questions about my faith in CAF.

 

[TexanKnight]

See, now this seems completely and unnecessarily uncharitable. Why slam another’s faith? Why put her or him on trial for not being the token Mormon in some other thread? If I were LDS, this post would be enough to ensure that I never responded to questions about my faith in CAF.

ah…so you believe js was a true prophet?

I am not slamming anyone. I am telling the truth. If you think truth is slamming, then you need to take a look at what you accept as truth.

Thanks

 

[gracepoole]

ah…so you believe js was a true prophet?

I am not slamming anyone. I am telling the truth. If you think truth is slamming, then you need to take a look at what you accept as truth.

Thanks

You originally wrote:

it is not as hard as you might think. When Mormons like you cannot even respond to the questions on cumorah and many versions of the vision, etc. it shows your church is nothing but a false church following a false prophet.

You aren’t expressing truth. You’re pointing a finger at one LDS poster and claiming his or her failure to engage in whatever questions have been asked in other threads is a sign that his or her “church is nothing but a false church following a false prophet.” And is this how you evangelize?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Well, besides the Eucharist, I would say the knowledge and comfort of being part of a two thousand year old community is something. Realizing that Jesus really didn’t leave us desolate. That he never abandoned or ceased guiding his Church. That God remains faithful, even if we haven’t always.

Yes, indeed. The apostasy is really what it comes down to. Did the original Church of Jesus Christ fail, with the priesthood of God not being present on the earth, or did it continue.

I found this article:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

very helpful on the matter (warning: it’s very long, but well worth the read, from both perspectives). It basically refers to the perspective that many LDS have on the Apostasy as “ecclesial deism”-

"Deism refers to a belief that God made the world, and then left it to run on its own. It is sometimes compared to “a clockmaker” winding up a clock and then “letting it run.” Deism is distinct from theism in that theism affirms not only that God created the world, but also that God continually sustains and governs all of creation. Ecclesial deism is the notion that Christ founded His Church, but then withdrew, not protecting His Church’s Magisterium (i.e., the Apostles and/or their successors) from falling into heresy or apostasy. Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith."

Now, some LDS (as we see in the lengthy comments discussion) believe that the Apostasy was merely due to the apostles not conferring their authority on successors (for whatever reasons).

Also, I don’t know if LDS have any understanding of the communion of saints, but this is such a great gift! Knowing that physical death can’t separate us from loved ones. That their prayers are being offered up to God for us, and they’re still intimately involved in our lives even after death. Awesome to realize we have so great a cloud of witnesses helping us.

LDS have somewhat of an understanding of the communion of saints. There is a belief that the deceased are somewhat aware of our lives. Some even talk about seeing or hearing them in temples. But the focus is really on proxy ordinances for the deceased. There is no asking the deceased saints for prayers.

Confession. Hearing the words of absolution is such a freeing and awesome experience.

There’s so much more…but those are some of the big ones for me.

I agree, there really is a lot.

P.S. Living Waters, I just got Scott Hahn’s new book myself. I’ve haven’t had the chance to sit down and read it yet, but I’ve been looking forward to it, and now that you reminded me of it I think I’ll just go ahead and do that right now.

YES, you should definitely read it, it’s well worth the read. After reading the book (along with Dr. Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist), I’m just like, how could I have given this up? The LDS position on the Sacrament/Eucharist really is untenable, cannot be found amongst the earliest writings of the Christians, including the Bible.

 

[Robyn_p]

Yes, indeed. The apostasy is really what it comes down to. Did the original Church of Jesus Christ fail, with the priesthood of God not being present on the earth, or did it continue.

I found this article:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

very helpful on the matter (warning: it’s very long, but well worth the read, from both perspectives). It basically refers to the perspective that many LDS have on the Apostasy as “ecclesial deism”-

"Deism refers to a belief that God made the world, and then left it to run on its own. It is sometimes compared to “a clockmaker” winding up a clock and then “letting it run.” Deism is distinct from theism in that theism affirms not only that God created the world, but also that God continually sustains and governs all of creation. Ecclesial deism is the notion that Christ founded His Church, but then withdrew, not protecting His Church’s Magisterium (i.e., the Apostles and/or their successors) from falling into heresy or apostasy. Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith."

Now, some LDS (as we see in the lengthy comments discussion) believe that the Apostasy was merely due to the apostles not conferring their authority on successors (for whatever reasons).

Interesting. Thanks for the link! I never though of it like that.

YES, you should definitely read it, it’s well worth the read. After reading the book (along with Dr. Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist), I’m just like, how could I have given this up? The LDS position on the Sacrament/Eucharist really is untenable, cannot be found amongst the earliest writings of the Christians, including the Bible.

Absolutely. The more I learn about the Eucharist, the more I fall in love with Catholicism. It’s so amazing how it all fits together in God’s plan.

The doors always open to come home! Whenever you’re ready.

Have you read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper”? It’s not so much about the Eucharist but about the Mass. That book seriously blew my mind. Revelation was always a book of the Bible I tended to avoid because it seemed so bizarre but after reading that book I find it slightly less intimidating now.

 

[TexanKnight]

You originally wrote:

You aren’t expressing truth. You’re pointing a finger at one LDS poster and claiming his or her failure to engage in whatever questions have been asked in other threads is a sign that his or her “church is nothing but a false church following a false prophet.” And is this how you evangelize?

I am expressing truth. Truth comes in many forms. Like our Pope said…be annoying when proclaiming Jesus Christ.

The only one attacking posters here right now, is you. Feel better?

 

[Porknpie]

Indeed. I think that one of the major issues for Latter-day Saints is on whether Christ taught the Real Presence or not. Many LDS apologetic works attempt to “prove” LDS beliefs (such as pre-mortal existence or exaltation) and practices by referencing writings from the early Christians. However, I have yet to see them attempt to demonstrate that the LDS view on the Eucharist/Sacrament was the original view. Instead, we see that the ECFs consistently taught the Real Presence, and interestingly, all of the most ancient Christian churches, no matter where they were and are (Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Ethiopia, India, Armenia, etc) all taught and teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In addition, it’s hard to read the New Testament account as supporting the LDS view.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Have you read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper”? It’s not so much about the Eucharist but about the Mass. That book seriously blew my mind. Revelation was always a book of the Bible I tended to avoid because it seemed so bizarre but after reading that book I find it slightly less intimidating now.

No, I haven’t read it, but I do own it (I own a few of his books, but not all). I think some Mormon apologists have also referred to the Book of Revelation as a liturgical/temple text, but clearly the most vivid and obvious comparisons are between Revelation and the Mass/Divine Liturgy, and not the LDS temple Endowment.

 

[Porknpie]

No, I haven’t read it, but I do own it (I own a few of his books, but not all). I think some Mormon apologists have also referred to the Book of Revelation as a liturgical/temple text, but clearly the most vivid and obvious comparisons are between Revelation and the Mass/Divine Liturgy, and not the LDS temple Endowment.

Also suggest reading Brandt Pitre’s book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist…not one or the other but read both.

 

[jediliz]

Because its the original Church from Acts.

 

[eddie_too]

only the churchs with apostolic succession have the Real Presence. so, if you do not profess the catholic faith, you cannot share in the Body and Blood of Christ.

another area in which i find the lds seriously lacking is in its theology of divinity. the catholic faith and the lds believe in totally different gods.

catholics believe that God is eternal, infinite and created all things. catholics believe God is Perfect Being, Pure Being and perfectly simple. they believe there is no potential in God. He is fully actualized. God has never changed.

the lds believes that god is a man who necessarily cannot be eternal or infinite and they believe that matter is uncreated. the lds believes the univers is eternal, but God is not eternal. the lds does not understand the concept of a fully actualized God. the lds believes God can change.

these differences are unreconcilable.

 

[eddie_too]

regarding the lds doctrine of the apostasy, a question comes to mind.

if the Church Jesus founded failed the first time, why would you want to restore it? would it be so that it could fail again?

also this doctrine of the apostasy is built on the belief that Jesus could NOT found a Church that would be available until the end of this world for all who believe in Him.

finally, this doctrine of the apostasy makes Jesus appear to be an incompetent charlatan. He comes to bring the Good News to mankind and then leaves billions of human beings without that truth for over 18 centuries.

 

[twopekinguys]

LW,

Might I suggest you check out this link.

It is -for the EWTN program “The Journey Home”. There are links to the program aired on 4-1-13, and 4-8-13. Both of those programs deal with former mormons.

Perhaps you might find some helpful information.

 

[gracepoole]

I am expressing truth. Truth comes in many forms. Like our Pope said…be annoying when proclaiming Jesus Christ.

And yet, Pope Francis is warm and loving and gracious while speaking truth. Go figure.