Posted on 11/08/2010 3:37:09 PM PST by delacoert
I objected to your "imputing motive" to the author of the article. From your original post, "In any case, the article suggests that these beliefs are generally lies, and specifically, generally lies of Mormon missionaries. Which means that the Mormon missionaries saying these things are generally liars. Meaning that they, like the author (presumably), don't believe the tenets of their religion, and thus act in bad faith."
Pretty clear case of suggesting something (presumably) a million miles from what (likely) was in the author's mind.
...I didn't intend it to be an invitation for you to proselytize for Catholicism in return.
I simply have a problem with someone who hasn't "walked the (mormon) walk" pontificating on the "possible" reasons for the author to state his conclusions after having had a chance to reflect on the actions he took as a mormon missionary.
IMO, you may have been speaking from the position of one who is absolutely convinced of the superiority and truth of YOUR faith regarding the journey of someone who has painfully discovered his own to be lacking and in the process denigrating the man who quite probably was speaking from his heart. Quite a stretch.
“Sorry...I don't see where your post is responsive to MY post.”
Made perfect sense to me. ;-)
In the first place, as I've replied before, I don't see much evidence that the author, himself, was lying when he affirmed the beliefs of the LDS religion as a missionary. Not in the article, at least. Thus, these aren't even lies vis-a-vis his own missionary work.
I continue to make an exception with regard to #1 since that's more about someone’s state of mind than about affirmation of propositional beliefs.
“...I didn't intend it to be an invitation for you to proselytize for Catholicism in return.”
I don't think that I did. If you think that I did, then therein lies part of the problem. Your perception and mine differ. Could be that your perception differs, as an ex-Mormon, from the perception of current Mormons.
“I simply have a problem with someone who hasn't ‘walked the (mormon) walk’ pontificating on the ‘possible’ reasons for the author to state his conclusions after having had a chance to reflect on the actions he took as a mormon missionary.”
Okay then. May we reflect on some of your experiences?
When you were a Mormon, did you believe the tenets of the religion (at least up until the time you started to consider serious doubts that caused you to abandon the religion)?
If you were an LDS missionary for a period, when you were telling people about LDS beliefs, did you disbelieve them, yourself?
Do you think that every LDS missionary thinks that what he believes is untrue?
“IMO, you may have been speaking from the position of one who is absolutely convinced of the superiority and truth of YOUR faith...”
Aren't YOU persuaded of the truth of your faith? If not, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT??
sitetest
Your perception and mine differ.
Sitetest...one of the interesting pheonomena that seems to occur among some non-Mormons on Mormon FR threads is...
...some will come in on a Mormon scandal thread, and say nary a word about the victim(s), but they'll talk as if they're an advocate or PR agent for the Mormon perp caught up in the crime...
...or some will come in on a thread where Mormon theology is being critiqued and they'll accuse some of us of "bashing" no matter what the tone or attitude is...if it's negative at all, they'll wonder why you aren't taking on the Muslims, the liberals, the Dems, whoever.
And so, at times, I'll ask them the "consistency" Q:
"Tell me, do you rush into threads where a public school male educator has been arrested for a sex crime vs. a female student & start defending that educator? No? Why not? Where's your sense of consistency?"
Or I'll say, "Hey, the Mormon church has been badly bashing Christianity for 180 years with their billion $ budgets and multi-media venues at their disposal. And yet, instead of contacting Salt Lake City HQ to give feedback on their scorched-earth religio-politics, you scold us -- a mere handful of posters?"
So, based on your comments, it's time to ask you a similar Q: What if I essentially repeated back some of your words to you...only changed the group we were talking about (words in italics are yours):
I kinda doubt that most liberal journalists think that they're doing something evil in trying to share their worldviews often imbedded in their articles. So, they might reject terms that label their actions as nefarious. You may disagree with them. And, it may be that you're objectively correct, and their methods ARE nefarious. Yet, they may not be persuaded of that.
My "consistency" Q for you: Do you occasionally go into FR threads where the liberal MSM is being "bashed" and torn asunder, and defend them similarly to your words highlighted above? If an ex-MSM Journalist wrote an article about "Ten Lies" he used to tell as a lib journalist, do you feel the need to accuse the journalist himself of lying in how he's presenting the MSM?
No? If not, why not?
I mean, c'mon...you've now gone on record saying the Mormon faith is "goofy" and "whacky." Certainly much of the MSM worldview is "goofy" and "whacky." Do you feel similarly compelled to be an MSM advocate of their goofy, whacky pet agenda?
THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized
According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons.
I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.
II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.
As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.
III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).
We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance:
A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.
B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).
Even in regard to these last elements it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does.
IV. The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It must be maintained therefore that one cannot think that the Baptism received by that person is anything different from what he was taught. It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism
Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.
We're Not Trying to Convert You
Is that statement by the (at that time) missionary a lie? What was his pre-missionary training and support materials all directed towards - converting you. To say they are not there to 'convert' is a lie by all definitions.
Equivocate and misdirect toward catholism all you may try sitetest - you fail epically to address this basic issue. The (former) missionary KNEW at the time he said they were not trying to convert you he was LYING. Perhaps addressing that rather than the bunny trails you've been trying to hijack the thread down.
If you were an LDS missionary for a period, when you were telling people about LDS beliefs, did you disbelieve them, yourself?
If I was an LDS missionary and my whole purpose for devoting two years of my life was in proselyting and converting both Christians and non-Christians into baptism and thereby membership in Mormonism,... and upon meeting them, I told them that I didn't intend to convert them - - then yes, that would be a lie since the whole purpose of being there, talking to that individual is to convert them. This is the first "lie" told by missionaries. It is intended to deceive.
It wouldn't matter if I seriously believed the doctrine, because I did, but to lie about my intent is still a lie regardless of the conviction of my belief.
Another area where I was told to “lie for the lord,” is in always showing the “church” (and I mean LDS church) in the best possible light. If it meant distorting its history, or obscuring embarrassing doctrine, or magnifying my tales of “faith,” it didn’t matter. The ultimate goal was in converting people. Lying was simply secondary.
I object to your characterization of my definition of Mormon missionary communication of Mormon doctrines as being lies as absurd. You merely employ rhetoric in a provocative manner, and you arrogantly maintain Catholicism as the only true Christianity.
Pah.
Be forewarned that your first discussion about the nature of God won't produce any visible change in your Mormon acquaintance. He's unlikely to admit the cogency and simplicity of your argument. He's working in good faith, and he's sincere in his beliefs, but psychologically you're at a disadvantage, since he wants to maintain his faith as he's known it.
Be patient as you help him see these theological "black holes."
MORMONISM'S DOUBLETHINK-Catholic Answers
Those Catholics seem to have the answers, alright.
Perhaps you will learn something from reading this, i.e., the testimony of Mormon missionaries - substantiatable by unignorable evidence of numerous videos on the internet, documents written by many former Mormons, citation available on FR supporting colorcountry's testimony that, 'I was told to “lie for the lord,”.'
Furthermore, long participation by many of us in the these threads on FR's Religion forums have convinced the Inman of the reality of the deliberate intention of Mormons on FR to post lies.
Since it it hard to recall your long term particition on these Mormon threads, it is hard to believe you understand that which you now assert - familiarity and competence on the subject of the Mormon "doctrines of demons."
State your bona fides.
Whether the Lady addresses your ‘request’ for bona fides or not, I for one will vouch for her completely. She is a Christian ex-mormon and has more ‘in the sty’ experience with Mormonism than I think you do.
“Sitetest...one of the interesting pheonomena that seems to occur among some non-Mormons on Mormon FR threads is...
...some will come in on a Mormon scandal thread, and say nary a word about the victim(s), but they'll talk as if they're an advocate or PR agent for the Mormon perp caught up in the crime...”
I rarely peruse threads related to the LDS religion. I looked in on this one because I thought I'd learn that Mormons consciously, with full intent to deceive, tell 10 different lies, and I'd learn what they are.
So, I get on this thread and discover that the “lies” are mostly about the propositional beliefs of Mormons! What a letdown! Here, I thought I was going to read all this good dirt on how those dirty little Mormons were running around like cockroaches in the dark, scheming to wittingly, knowingly deceive innocent people. And all I get is that Mormons missionaries tell people what the LDS religion is all about. Gee whiz.
Now, let's look at your substitution exercise:
“I kinda doubt that most liberal journalists think that they're doing something evil in trying to share their worldviews often imbedded in their articles. So, they might reject terms that label their actions as nefarious. You may disagree with them. And, it may be that you're objectively correct, and their methods ARE nefarious. Yet, they may not be persuaded of that.”
I actually know folks who went to college to actually major in journalism and communications, so I'm going to be thinking of some of them as I answer this.
First sentence: I agree with that whole-heartedly. The folks I know actually truly really believe the garbage they spew. They actually believe that global warming is going to have us 20 feet under water by 2050. They actually believe that it's “a woman's right to choose.” They actually believe that higher taxes on the rich are a good idea.
I think they occupy the far denizens of the left side of the bell curve. I think that they've got their heads up you-know-where.
But they're all quite sincere. If gloriously stupid.
Reading through the rest of your substitution exercise, yeah, it all works for me. They see nothing wrong with what they do, or what the lamestream media does. They would strongly object to labeling what they and their cohorts in the lamestream media to as nefarious, even the stuff that really is nefarious.
Yup. Absolutely.
It's why it's so darned frustrating with some of these folks I know, some of whom are actual relatives.
“My ‘consistency’ Q for you: Do you occasionally go into FR threads where the liberal MSM is being ‘bashed’ and torn asunder, and defend them similarly to your words highlighted above? If an ex-MSM Journalist wrote an article about ‘Ten Lies’ he used to tell as a lib journalist, do you feel the need to accuse the journalist himself of lying in how he's presenting the MSM?”
Hypothetical. I'd have to read it.
The problem here is that the actual article in question says this:
“As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible. After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984.”
He was a missionary from 1975 to 1977. After his mission ended, he actually went through the Bible and examined the doctrines more closely. The more he studied, the longer he studied, the less able he was to reconcile his LDS beliefs with the Bible. Finally, in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, a full seven years after his mission ended, he left the LDS religion.
To me, this strongly suggests that he was an actual believing Mormon from 1975 - 1977.
If a liberal-turned-conservative journalist were to right that from, say, 1995 - 1997, he wrote all sorts of liberal lunacies, but that by 2004, he'd abandoned his former beliefs and embraced conservative views, I'd think it disingenuous to say that his earlier views were “lies,” or to suggest that other journalists who tout this baloney were “lying.”
Now, there are times when some or many (most? all?) lie. For instance, when Glenn Beck has a rally and clearly hundreds of thousands of folks show up and then Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have a rally and a few tens of thousands of folks show up, and some folks misrepresent the two audiences as basically similar in size. Even there, only the folks who actually manufactured the false data, or those actually aware that the data was falsified would be lying. Those repeating the false information unknowingly wouldn't be lying.
But that's not the affirmation of a propositional belief, that's just fudging. Having one’s own interpretation of the Bible, believing that there are sacred texts beyond the Bible, these are propositions of belief.
“Do you feel similarly compelled to be an MSM advocate of their goofy, whacky pet agenda?”
I'm not an advocate of the lamestream media's agenda, nor of the LDS agenda. I AM an advocate of acknowledging that folks who disagree with me may not be lying, just mistaken.
sitetest
“This is the first ‘lie’
told by missionaries. It is intended to deceive.”
This is why I allowed for an exception to the first “lie.”
Nonetheless, I'm not really willing to generalize this, for reasons on which I've already written copiously in this thread.
However, you confirm that you believed the tenets of the LDS religion that you shared with others.
Thus, for “lies” 2 - 9, it seems hard to me to characterize them fairly as lies, at least not of those missionaries affirming them.
So, at best, we have 1 lies told by a Mormon missionary and 9 affirmed beliefs that the missionary later decided were false.
sitetest
Were there any of the ten you would agree are purposeful lying?
You can object until the cows come home.
If you believe that someone who mistakenly asserts something as true a thing that is actually false is telling a lie, is a liar, then your definition of the words is absurd.
“...and you arrogantly maintain Catholicism as the only true Christianity.”
I never actually said that, and in fact, the very fact that I speak about “non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christians” makes it really difficult to reasonably infer that.
You have misrepresented me again.
What is that, by your definition?
sitetest
BTW, the author of the piece is giving a perspective from after being born again outside of Mormonism, looking back at what was done to support —as the author perceives them in retrospect— the lies of satanic origin which prop up Mormonism. In a spirit of ecumenism we can see why you would not want such things discussed openly.
I mistakenly adressed this to you when I intended it for sitetest.
<doh>
I don't think it's quite fair to ask me to go back and repeat stuff I've already posted. I've already taken up too much of my day involved in this thread, being for the most part the lone respondent to multiple other posters.
But as I believe you asked in good faith, this is from my post #7 (my first post to the thread):
“With the possible exception of No. 1, these really aren’t lies, but rather beliefs with which the author now differs.”
As I've said more than once, No. 1 goes to the interior state of a person's mind rather than to an affirmation of a religious belief or doctrine. There are any number of ways for someone to understand the first “lie,” but some folks might decide straightforwardly that in asserting the first statement, they're lying.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.