Catholic World Report Asks: "Does Mormonism ruin faith?"

[tagriffy]

It would probably take a 20,000 word essay to tease out my opinion, but I think at the root @InCognitus has it right. Nearly every argument that can be levied against Mormonism can be used just as well against mainstream Christianity. Particularly if you're pushing inerrancy, the Bible doesn't hold up any better than the Book of Mormon. What's left after that?

If I have anything to add to the suggestions I've already made, I think there are two other possible contributing factors. The first is the all-or-nothing approach to Book of Mormon historicity often pushed by Church authorities and apologists. If the semi-official line is there is no middle ground, those who can't accept BoM historicity will be pushed to choose fraud. And that will have implications for considering other religions.

The second is that the typical Latter-day Saint approach to scripture is functional literalism. Again, this puts emphasis on an either/or frame of mind such that if one thing falls, the rest will eventually follow.

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that most members who leave don't join another religion because most of the reasons that they lost their faith in the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints apply equally to all other religions.  

This is exactly it. You have to maintain a close relationship with Heavenly Father no matter where you are  spiritually or physically. 

[bsjkki]

I will speak anecdotally. My two children that have completely left the faith are atheists. My Catholic sister-in-law made the comment that her and my brother (a non-member) noticed that those who have left the church, don't seem to replace it with another faith. Again, speaking anecdotally of my friends and family who have left the church...this is very true. I can't think of one who has replaced the church with another church. 

Why that is? For of those I know who have left, it was traumatic for them. Religion now is associated with painful memories/experiences. 

[jkwilliams]

16 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I will speak anecdotally. My two children that have completely left the faith are atheists. My Catholic sister-in-law made the comment that her and my brother (a non-member) noticed that those who have left the church, don't seem to replace it with another faith. Again, speaking anecdotally of my friends and family who have left the church...this is very true. I can't think of one who has replaced the church with another church. 

Why that is? For of those I know who have left, it was traumatic for them. Religion now is associated with painful memories/experiences. 

Yeah, there’s something to that. I’ve often thought that, even if I could re-shelve the glaring problems with Mormonism, I would not ever want to feel about myself like I did when I was a believer. 

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, tagriffy said:

If the semi-official line is there is no middle ground, those who can't accept BoM historicity will be pushed to choose fraud.

Not necessarily.

The plates could be created, by a person titled "Mormon", a human acting as an angel, then given to Joseph perhaps with or without his knowledge of their source, then "consecrated" to God, not unlike how created bread can become/ be transubstantiated into the Body of Christ for Catholics, then used as a catalyst and "translated" by the "power of God" as Joseph in visions, saw them.

Every Catholic sees a similar process at every mass.

If you have a testimony that the words come from God, the text itself becomes irrelevant.

Testimony is what defines the truth, for a believer.  Catholics included!

This view iirc or something close, was proposed by Ann Taves.

I'm neither accepting nor rejecting this view, but see it as an alternative paradigm.

If humans can be "angels" through divine investiture, there could be no end to the rational possibilities with no fraud intended.

Edited October 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, there’s something to that. I’ve often thought that, even if I could re-shelve the glaring problems with Mormonism, I would not ever want to feel about myself like I did when I was a believer. 

But of course that is subjective psychology commenting more about what you were taught than anything else.

I was converted by religious experience, THEN tried to put all the broken shards together. That was MY personal psychology 

It just depends on personal preferences, perhaps.  Btw, hope all is well with you!

Edited October 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

But of course that is subjective psychology commenting more about what you were taught than anything else.

I was converted by religious experience, THEN tried to put all the broken shards together.

It just depends on personal preferences, perhaps.  Btw, hope all is well with you!

Lived experience is always subjective. Hope you’re doing well, too. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, there’s something to that. I’ve often thought that, even if I could re-shelve the glaring problems with Mormonism, I would not ever want to feel about myself like I did when I was a believer. 

There is an old saying that I am sure most here are familiar with - Once you open a can of worms, the only way to get them back in, is to use a bigger can.

I think that the healthy response is that we all need to learn to use progressively bigger cans. Problems force us to recontextualize what we thought we knew, and in doing so, we sometimes engage a larger horizon.

[tagriffy]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not necessarily.

The plates could be created, by a person titled "Mormon", a human acting as an angel, then given to Joseph perhaps with or without his knowledge of their source, then "consecrated" to God, not unlike how created bread can become/ be transubstantiated into the Body of Christ for Catholics, then used as a catalyst and "translated" by the "power of God" as Joseph in visions, saw them.

Every Catholic sees a similar process at every mass.

If you have a testimony that the words come from God, the text itself becomes irrelevant.

Testimony is what defines the truth, for a believer.  Catholics included!

This view iirc or something close, was proposed by Ann Taves.

I'm neither accepting nor rejecting this view, but see it as an alternative paradigm.

If humans can be "angels" through divine investiture, there could be no end to the rational possibilities with no fraud intended.

I know. You introduced Taves' essay about a year ago. I find it extremely attractive. I made use of it in the essay I uploaded here and will be posting to my blog probably within the week. I was responding to someone who criticized it.

[jkwilliams]

31 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is an old saying that I am sure most here are familiar with - Once you open a can of worms, the only way to get them back in, is to use a bigger can.

I think that the healthy response is that we all need to learn to use progressively bigger cans. Problems force us to recontextualize what we thought we knew, and in doing so, we sometimes engage a larger horizon.

I did that for many years. I suppose the can refused to get bigger when it became a matter of things that hurt my conscience. But point taken. 

[SkyRock]

At various times I have considered whether to stay in the church and I continue to do stay in the church,  but it is something I think about on occasion. 

If I ever left, i think I would start going to Orthodox services.   I enjoy reading Orthodox scholarship and find that there is a lot of insight in the gospel there. 

I don't find the same with Catholicism or most Protestants.  

I would not be an atheist or agnostic.

[3DOP]

If the light of reason reflecting on nature gives no evidence of a Creator, when one loses evidence for a Creator in the light of faith, why would that person pursue a new religion?

I think that the author of the Catholic World Report article did not appreciate how many LDS hold that belief in God cannot be reached apart from faith. Their is agreement with atheism already that all arguments for the existence of God fail. This is in stark contrast to the Catholic teaching, defined at Vatican Council I, that the existence of a Creator God is evident according to the light of reason reflecting on the creation.

I am happy to be corrected about my assertion above about what "many LDS hold". But if I am correct about this, which comes from my limited experience on the internet, it might partly explain why LDS are already uninclined to look for another religion if a faith crisis should arise.

 

 

 

[BlueDreams]

37 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

If the light of reason reflecting on nature gives no evidence of a Creator, when one loses evidence for a Creator in the light of faith, why would that person pursue a new religion?

I think that the author of the Catholic World Report article did not appreciate how many LDS hold that belief in God cannot be reached apart from faith. Their is agreement with atheism already that all arguments for the existence of God fail. This is in stark contrast to the Catholic teaching, defined at Vatican Council I, that the existence of a Creator God is evident according to the light of reason reflecting on the creation.

I am happy to be corrected about my assertion above about what "many LDS hold". But if I am correct about this, which comes from my limited experience on the internet, it might partly explain why LDS are already uninclined to look for another religion if a faith crisis should arise.

 

 

 

Could you explain that a little more. What do you mean by the bold? And whas is the Catholic belief around "the light of reason" reflecting on the creation?

Thanks

With luv,

BD 

[3DOP]

17 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Could you explain that a little more. What do you mean by the bold? And whas is the Catholic belief around "the light of reason" reflecting on the creation?

Thanks

With luv,

BD 

Hi BD,

I am confident that my fellow Catholics here will be able to explain this if they see it before we arrive back home from vacation this weekend.

I can say for now that it stems from our interpretation of Romans 1. But I would like to quote what the Council says about it too. But I am on my phone now, and away from my books. 

God bless,

Rory

Edited October 11, 2023 by 3DOP

[Navidad]

On 10/9/2023 at 12:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

t's the thing Christian Anti-Mormons never understood, your kind is not the default religion. If you make fun of a man's spiritual witness, you'll get a man to doubt not only the witness, but the God that gave it to him. These are highs stake games we are playing when trying to "convert" us. We are all spoiled by the promises, we are beyond the husks of the world, we need the meat from the Father's table, and you have no substitute for our need for revelation. Mormonism sufficiently ruins our faith in lesser faiths. It's the true church or nothing. 

I hope you are willing to distinguish between non-LDS Christians and Christian Anti-Mormons. There is a huge difference.

I don't know what "your kind" means? My "kind" is Christian - neither Evangelical or Mennonite.

I am not sure who you are talking to on this forum? Are there any Christian Anti-Mormons currently on this forum to whom you are speaking?

I am not sure I have ever met a Christian in my Christian walk who "makes fun of a man's spiritual witness." I am sure there must be some, but probably no greater a percentage than those LDS Christians who in a sense "make fun" of my faith by denigrating its validity before The Father and Son.

Most sincere Christians I know of any Christian group need and appreciate meat from the Father's table and have a similar need for revelation. Urging Christians to pray to find God's unique, specific,  and individual will for one's life, family, or group is one of the most common admonitions from a non-LDS pulpit that I know. We deem that "special revelation" in fact (as differentiated from general revelation). Lesser faiths? The true church or nothing? I can't even comment on that type of binarism.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Navidad

[BlueDreams]

Also equally anecdotal. I have 3 siblings who've left and a few cousins I'm also fairly close to. Only one switched religious affiliation. One... let's just say his whole personality doesn't aim religious. The others it was a mix of hard questions or hard life experiences meeting a religious faith  that wasn't fully formed or didn't meet the challenges they were experiencing. One would have led to a life of disonant practice for her IMHO.  Their friends also largely leaned less religious period.. So the voices and answers they'd hear most to questions around religion would have been non-religious to begin with. 

All of them were young when they left. I don't think any were older than mid to late-ish 20's. 

 

 

Personally I do think I'd have a hard time integrating into another Christian faith community. One of my Biggest stumbling blocks would be the Trinity, particularly since I've had several strong experiences with Heavenly Mother. I could maybe assume I was experiencing Mary?

The other big one is sussing out what I've spiritually experienced period. I've had several potent spiritual experiences in my life. Most have been LDS specific. But a number, including one entailing the Catholic Church recently on my trip in peru, aren't. So ironically if I dismantled my faith, it's not the exclusionary assumptions that would trip me up but some of the more universalist oriented claims that would be a problem. I would need to find a way to differentiate the two or at least have the one lead to the other. Because if one is in question there's not really a way to separate the two. For me. 

But I do like/value community experience and I do strongly believe in jesus, so I'd probably try to fill the void with something that doesn't insist I dismiss or excuse some of my spiritual experiences for others. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Navidad]

On 10/9/2023 at 1:09 PM, teddyaware said:

want to embrace any religion that believes in a hard-hearted God who rashly condemns the vast majority of the human family to an endless hell of unimaginable pain and suffering?

That is an awfully harsh portrayal if that is your image of the majority of non-LDS Christianity in the world. Hard-hearted? Rash?  That certainly is not my image of my heavenly Father, or His Son, Jesus Christ. That is a portrayal that presents the fringe as the norm. I would suggest that it is also an ever-shrinking fringe of non-LDS Christianity. You are asserting the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th century perspective of non-LDS Christianity as the 21st Century norm. That is akin to me presenting the norms of The Seer as those of current 21st century LDS mainstream beliefs. Methinks presenting the fringe as the norm is never a cogent persuasive argument.

[Navidad]

Just now, BlueDreams said:

Also equally anecdotal. I have 3 siblings who've left and a few cousins I'm also fairly close to. Only one switched religious affiliation. One... let's just say his whole personality doesn't aim religious. The others it was a mix of hard questions or hard life experiences meeting a religious faith  that wasn't fully formed or didn't meet the challenges they were experiencing. One would have led to a life of disonant practice for her IMHO.  Their friends also largely leaned less religious period.. So the voices and answers they'd hear most to questions around religion would have been non-religious to begin with. 

All of them were young when they left. I don't think any were older than mid to late-ish 20's. 

 

 

Personally I do think I'd have a hard time integrating into another Christian faith community. One of my Biggest stumbling blocks would be the Trinity, particularly since I've had several strong experiences with Heavenly Mother. I could maybe assume I was experiencing Mary?

The other big one is sussing out what I've spiritually experienced period. I've had several potent spiritual experiences in my life. Most have been LDS specific. But a number, including one entailing the Catholic Church recently on my trip in peru, aren't. So ironically if I dismantled my faith, it's not the exclusionary assumptions that would trip me up but some of the more universalist oriented claims that would be a problem. I would need to find a way to differentiate the two or at least have the one lead to the other. Because if one is in question there's not really a way to separate the two. For me. 

But I do like/value community experience and I do strongly believe in jesus, so I'd probably try to fill the void with something that doesn't insist I dismiss or excuse some of my spiritual experiences for others. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Hi my friend:  I always appreciate your posts. I look forward to them. Two questions - why do you think you would have to profess a trinitarian perspective to integrate into another Christian faith community? Certainly you would for some, but there are increasingly more and more Christian groups that have dropped a trinitarian belief from their statements of faith to include a more generalized statement of a Godhead composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As a faithful member of the LDS church, would you not be able to accept such a statement?

I also can't imagine asking someone to "dismiss or excuse" their own personal spiritual experiences. I see a huge growth in the credibility and acceptance of spiritual, pietistic, charismatic, pentecostal (referring to Pentecost), personal, devotional, (whatever term you would like to use) experiences throughout non-LDS Christianity, including both Protestants, Catholics, and non-Protestant/non-Catholic Christianity such as Anabaptism or Pentecostalism. Even the most strident Fundamentalist will often declare that God has "revealed" this or that to them. That concept is not foreign to non-LDS Christianity, especially that of a pietistic leaning.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

On 10/9/2023 at 11:48 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding, "there is absolutely no evidence to support the events described in the Book of Mormon."

Back when I got serious about LDS scholarship, after my mission in 1975, what I call "the good stuff" would fill perhaps half a shelf.   Now I have a wall, and that is just what I have myself.  There is more that I haven't been able to fit into my budget and time.  A real problem is this:

If your basic framework presumes that the Book of Mormon is unthinkable, no information that happens to slip past the conceptual boundaries and gate keeping will count as evidence. 

Mesoamericanist John Clark explains:

Another problem is just not keeping up. For example, at the moment I am reviewing Hardy's excellent Annotated Book of Mormon.  Hardy is generally well informed and tries to be fair. But from time to time he says things like this, intending to show that he is both fair and informed.

The problem here is that while he is repeating a common critique of directions in Sorenson's model, he is not keeping up.  Here is Gardner on Mesoamerican concepts of directions, and how they diverge from what we might assume is "the plain meaning of the text."

I've attached a figure from Larry Poulson's important FAIR Presentation that shows that the difference makes all the difference, rather the way that Kepler's elliptical orbits refined the Copernican model that originally theorized circular orbits. 

 https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

Given how old the refinement is, and what a difference it makes, the question is, why doesn't an otherwise well-informed person of Hardy's stature and reputation know this?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen
 

At the root of this problem, from my point of view, is the correspondence theory of truth, and you show that clearly.

The world of human experience, especially spiritual experience,  cannot be reduced to squiggles on a page or circles an arrows on a map, and yet Mormonism REQUIRES spiritual experience to establish its "truth".

In that respect we are closer I think to Eastern religions which see things in terms of personal spiritual progression, and not correspondence with written rules.

I think that is behind President Nelson's direction to think celestially- personal communication with Christ does not come from slavish rule following or a one time recitation of "the sinner's prayer", it comes usually as part of a long progession of incremental spiritual changes, that have no north or south.

So yes, we are a Postmodern faith, depending on spiritual evidence of "truth" while also demanding yes or no answers to complex temple recommend questions, which we see constantly on this board, have many interpretations.

I personally think it will become more and more difficult to try to maintain literal interpretation of scriptures and one word answers in a complex postmodern world.

We are no more pushing oxen in the direction the sun sets.

Edit: read Philippians 4: 1-13

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Pyreaux]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I hope you are willing to istinguish between non-LDS Christians and Christian Anti-Mormons. There is a huge difference.

I don't know what "your kind" means? My "kind" is Christian - neither Evangelical or Mennonite.

I am not sure who you are talking to on this forum? Are there any Christian Anti-Mormons currently on this forum to whom you are speaking?

I am not sure I have ever met a Christian in my Christian walk who "makes fun of a man's spiritual witness." I am sure there must be some, but probably no greater a percentage than those LDS Christians who in a sense "make fun" of my faith by denigrating its validity before The Father and Son.

Most sincere Christians I know of any Christian group need and appreciate meat from the Father's table and have a similar need for revelation. Urging Christians to pray to find God's unique, specific,  and individual will for one's life, family, or group is one of the most common admonitions from a non-LDS pulpit that I know. We deem that "special revelation" in fact (as differentiated from general revelation). Lesser faiths? The true church or nothing? I can't even comment on that type of binarism.

I don't think any examples are on this forum. I have met many Christian "apologists" and "missionaries2mormons" who confuse defense with all offense, all the time, putting down everything, while providing nothing to replace it. A "lesser faith" is one whose only claim to be correct is by how not correct Catholics, Muslim and Mormons are, and assume they are the last bastion of truth. Maybe I should have said "the truth or nothing", I think making a truth claim front and center is important to the LDS mind, thus ex-LDS don't settle for "less". I know not every non-LDS is non-Charismatic, it's not usually them I'm talking about.

[Navidad]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

I think that is behind President Nelson's direction to think celestially- personal communication with Christ does not come from slavish rule following or a one time recitation of "the sinner's prayer", it comes usually as part of a long progession of incremental spiritual changes, that have no north or south.

Amen brother! Preach it! I heartily agree with you!

[BlueDreams]

42 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend:  I always appreciate your posts. I look forward to them. Two questions - why do you think you would have to profess a trinitarian perspective to integrate into another Christian faith community? Certainly you would for some, but there are increasingly more and more Christian groups that have dropped a trinitarian belief from their statements of faith to include a more generalized statement of a Godhead composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As a faithful member of the LDS church, would you not be able to accept such a statement?

My flippant side immediately said "you're missing one" to your last question. I believe in the Godhead, yes. But I also strongly believe in Heavenly Mother. For many LDS that may be more technical than a strong conviction. For me it's a strong conviction. I believe in the Divine Feminine with about the same strength as I do Jesus. That is not a very common mainstream Christian belief. Off the top of my head, the closest is Mary in a Catholic oriented tradition. But Catholicism generally does maintain a trinitarian stance pretty solidly. So solidly that they don't recognize an LDS baptism over it. Besides in my current context I don't believe it's Mary I'm experiencing. And that's before you get into the weeds of what I believe about HM, the fall, etc. I would probably find some space in more liberal christian circles, I would fit better in more universalist oriented faiths.... but my place in most would probably come with a big asterix that said "heavily non-representative of said church." Not without seriously reorienting my beliefs and experiences to better fit into mainstream thought. And that would take work. I can see how much easier it would be just to not. I already have things in my faith tradition that I feel we're missing, need clarity, or may currently be wrong on.  Luckily there's language that allows me to believe that without much dissonance and I still believe in the bulk purposes of the church. It would take work to reorient into another tradition and feel supportive with the body of said denomination/faith.   

 

42 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I also can't imagine asking someone to "dismiss or excuse" their own personal spiritual experiences. I see a huge growth in the credibility and acceptance of spiritual, pietistic, charismatic, pentecostal (referring to Pentecost), personal, devotional, (whatever term you would like to use) experiences throughout non-LDS Christianity, including both Protestants, Catholics, and non-Protestant/non-Catholic Christianity such as Anabaptism or Pentecostalism. Even the most strident Fundamentalist will often declare that God has "revealed" this or that to them. That concept is not foreign to non-LDS Christianity, especially that of a pietistic leaning.

Usually what's "revealed" fits within the doctrinal paradigm they live in. Many of mine inherently wouldn't. I doubt anyone would abjectly come and confront my spiritual experiences. But I would still probably feel personal dissonance in a community that would be fairly foreign to me.

 

With luv,

BD 

[manol]

My anecdotal observations of people I've known well who are no longer members of the LDS Church: 

- Some were either never really comfortable in the LDS Church (having been born into it) or became uncomfortable within it.  Most of these are now atheist/agnostic, and one is wiccan.

- Some joined another religion or group that resonated better with them (without, far as I could tell, harboring any significant negative feelings towards the LDS Church).  These other religions include Reform Judaism, Baha'i, non-denominational Christianity, and a fundamentalist LDS group. 

- Some still "believe" in some sense but are not affiliated with any religion or group.   

To the best of my knowledge only one of the people who came to mind was significantly affected by "anti-Mormon" arguments, such as criticisms of Joseph Smith or of the Book of Mormon.  I'm not aware of any of them being actively critical of the LDS Church, although I was at one point about twenty years ago.

On 10/9/2023 at 1:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

It's the thing Christian Anti-Mormons never understood... We are all spoiled by the promises, we are beyond the husks of the world, we need the meat from the Father's table, and you have no substitute for our need for revelation. Mormonism sufficiently ruins our faith in lesser faiths. It's the true church or nothing.  [emphasis manol's]

Ironically it was my need for revelation, and my perception of a disturbing contrast in this area between the modern LDS Church and the days of Joseph Smith, that led to a significant widening of my search radius beginning thirty-something years ago.  

Edited October 11, 2023 by manol

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I think that the author of the Catholic World Report article did not appreciate how many LDS hold that belief in God cannot be reached apart from faith. Their is agreement with atheism already that all arguments for the existence of God fail. This is in stark contrast to the Catholic teaching, defined at Vatican Council I, that the existence of a Creator God is evident according to the light of reason reflecting on the creation.

The key is, yes the arguments for the existence of God fail, when faith and reason coincide. 

The problem is argumentation is not always "reason" when we use words which cannot represent reality in its fullness!

Reason in its fullness includes ALL human experience including emotion because we now see "in a mirror darkly" and NOT "face to face"

Semantic error started in Babel, while trying to use pure and literal reason to reach God!

"God lives UP in heaven so to reach God, reason says we should go UP!"

Perfectly logical, right?

And so God scrambles language so that arguments cannot capture the world as it is literally, because we only see our own semantic errors as in a mirror, darkly!

So as William James and Rorty and Kuhn point out, truth now becomes a semantic model, (paradigm) that works for a while until it doesn't.!

And literalism in reading 2k year old scriptures doesn't work, but if we see the overall MESSAGE we can approach seeing "face to face".

And that is why postmodernism can work for us today in a postmodern, ie post literalist, world.

Reason itself has changed.

[Navidad]

Just now, BlueDreams said:

Usually what's "revealed" fits within the doctrinal paradigm they live in. Many of mine inherently wouldn't. I doubt anyone would abjectly come and confront my spiritual experiences. But I would still probably feel personal dissonance in a community that would be fairly foreign to me.

 

I don't question any of these assertions at all. I know from my five to six years engaged in the LDS church the reality of personal dissonance from engagement in a community that is "fairly foreign," especially when the policies about engagement change with different local leadership.  My interest is in trying to help folks here develop a more congruent (perception with reality) or perhaps (phenomenological with ideal) perception of the current and developing state of non-LDS Christianity. Take care.