A Mormon Scholar’s Journey to Catholic Faith

Early in the evening of May 28, 2010, I am attending Mass in the majestic Basilica di Sant’Apollinare next to the Pontificia Università della Santa Croce in Rome. From Utah I have come as a scholar to deliver a paper at an international conference on the work of the great Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand, and I have come as a tourist to see the Eternal City for the first time. Mass is being celebrated in the basilica for those attending the conference.

I am not Catholic—in fact, I was raised a Mormon, though I have had serious doubts about the Latter-day Saint faith for decades. Yet my journey of the heart—which ultimately ended in the Catholic Church—came long after I had intellectually departed—so I cannot receive Holy Communion. But when Archbishop Raymond Burke places his hand on my head in a blessing, the extraordinary presence of Jesus Christ moves my soul to tears. I now know, in my head and in my heart, that I have come to Rome as a pilgrim. I have finally heard his voice, and I will not turn away.

Of course, I was awestruck by the beauty of Rome. The conference was wonderful, and I made important contacts and great friends. But infinitely more important, I found a priceless gift: the God of truth I had ignored for decades. I found my soul, which had been lost in the fog of my pride and stubbornness. Thus began a journey that took me to the waters of Catholic baptism, the anointing of confirmation, and first Communion at the Easter Vigil of 2012. You do not need to travel thousands of miles to have a real encounter with Christ. But your soul does need to be open in a way mine had not been for years.

Mormon friends ask how I could leave the LDS Church. Catholic friends ask why the pilgrimage to Rome took me so long. My brother, a rabbi, was the first person I told I was converting. When we talked, he said simply, “You were a Catholic thinker when you were a graduate student at Harvard in the 1970s.”

Intellectually, there are two beliefs at the core of the LDS faith that I eventually realized I could not accept. The first is the doctrine of a “great apostasy” afflicting the church. Mormons do not deny that Peter led the church after Jesus’ Ascension. They deny that the Holy Spirit continued to guide it. Mormons believe that after Peter the patristic church lost its way.

And by “losing its way,” Mormons do not mean that the church suffered from human sinfulness or became too wedded to secular power. Christianity supposedly strayed so far that it was no longer Christianity. It did not merely require renewal, as St. Francis preached. It did not merely require a new vocabulary to express timeless truths, as Vatican II proclaimed. Mormons believe that the church—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant visions alike—completely died and that Christianity required a “restoration” by God himself.

My intellectual journey was inspired in large part by my study of patristics. Reading the Church Fathers in my first year at Harvard in 1970–71, I realized that this story was false. Even my meager study of the Fathers allowed me to see what Newman had seen—that there was a development of Christian thought, a deepening of our understanding of such truths as the Incarnation and the Trinity. There simply was no evidence of a fundamental break from the church Jesus established. As one of Mormonism’s most brilliant minds of the last half century, Edwin Firmage, wrote after he left the LDS Church: “The idea that God was sort of snoozing until 1820 now seems to me absurd.”

Two passages from the Gospel of Matthew are particularly difficult to reconcile with the Mormon doctrine of the great apostasy. Jesus promised Peter that “the gates of the netherworld” would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16) and he promised the Apostles that he would be with the Church until the end of the age (Matthew 28).

The other fundamental Mormon teaching that I cannot accept is the absence of an existential distinction between God and man. In an 1844 sermon, Joseph Smith made a claim that profoundly shapes the way Mormons see the world: “God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man.” Parse this out and God himself becomes a finite, physical being. How, I wondered, can we have absolute confidence in a God whose power and knowledge are limited, not just by the rules of logic, as St. Thomas would have said, but by unknown barriers? A limited God cannot be our anchor in the face of extreme horrors or profound personal loss. In the face of terrible, inexplicable loss, Job did not place his trust in an “exalted man.” The God who spoke to Job did not start out on a world like ours. This God, who comforted Job and comforts millions of others every day, to whom we can truly pray “not my will but yours be done,” cannot be the limited being Mormons call “god.”

The Mormon “god,” who came from a world like ours, cannot be the creator of all worlds, as Scripture and reason tell us he is. The physical god of the Mormons cannot have been present at creation, when there was no matter. Furthermore, if all of us can become “gods,” then Mormonism is incompatible with Christian Trinitarianism and Jewish monotheism. It is polytheism.

Compounding all this, in my experience, is the fact that Mormons generally do not seek for serious answers. In fact, Mormon authorities actively discourage the marriage of faith and reason that we Catholics celebrate. I now profess openly what I always too silently believed: If a faith cannot be sustained in the face of serious questions, it is not a faith worth having.

If these reasons to reject Mormonism were sound for me over forty years ago, why did I stay? I could say it was culture, friendship, or inertia, and those reasons are accurate in a certain sense. But the full truth is found in Psalm 95: “Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.” I now know that at least four times in those forty years I specifically heard God calling me to his Church, but I turned away. My oldest and closest friend since 1970 told me twice directly that, like him, I should be a Catholic. I knew he was right. Yet I did nothing.

In one instance, the turning was literal. I had invited a Catholic theologian to speak at Utah State on religion and science, and I arranged a lunch for him with the Newman Club. After lunch, the parish priest and I talked for a long time. As our conversation wound down, I felt strongly that I should go with him to his office and talk about my faith. Yet I turned away and walked back to my office.

In the past two years, my journey towards the Catholic Church has brought me to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ than I have ever had. I have not “given up my faith.” Leaving Mormonism for Catholicism is a journey many others are making, and it has allowed me to experience God’s love in a profoundly richer way.

I had a friend (Catholic) who was from the only non-Mormon family in his town in Colorado. This theory was taught in the public schools of that town, at least until the 1970s.

His mother told him just to ignore it and make sure he got through 6th grade...the family then moved out of Mormon territory.

I think one of the reasons there are so many Mormons in computer sciences is that it’s logical, mathematical, not based on any weird theories, and Mormonism has nothing to do with it.

I’ve seen Mormons at work in Catholic countries and among Catholic immigrants. They give the impression that this is nothing but an American version of Christianity, so it has a lot of appeal to people who want to be or emulate Americans.

I read somewhere that they are actually told not to reveal their true beliefs when they are preaching. I saw them once in Spain, singing American Christmas carols and acting as if the were just like the Baptists (who also recruit heavily in Catholic countries, again, because people there regard it is being modern and American).

They also sponsor and host a lot of Nativity scenes and things like that, even though of course they do not believe in the Incarnation. I am very interested in Nativity scenes, and I was a member of a national Nativity scene organization that was essentially taken over by the Mormons for their own purposes.

I’ve also seen them in Miami and many other places where there are Hispanic and Haitian immigrants, and again, they come across just like any Evangelicals. I think there’s a lack of truth in advertising there...

We agree that syllogisms themselves are okay. It’s their misuse that is the problem.
Bierce’s fencepost is hardly syllogism though ...

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." God said it.
That settles it.
By complete total faith I believe it.
By syllogism, angels dance on the head of a pin.
I do not believe in that.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural (psuchikos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolish unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually (pneumatikos) discerned. ...
But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor. 2:12-14,16b)

The word "therefore" does not appear in this passage. The 'psuchikos' man who attempts psychological logic to attain dominance, and needs it to stabilize.

The spiritual man leans not on his own understanding, but trusts in the inerrant, infallible, plenary inspired, and preserved Word of The God, which spoken, conquers.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. ..." (Phil. 2:5)

Did it make any sense by humanistic reasonings (logismoi) for Him to come down from His Glory, and be slain as a though a disobedient slave of Satan?

I read somewhere that they are actually told not to reveal their true beliefs when they are preaching.

That is true, they are formally taught how to mislead, redirect, and lie, so that they can gradually turn a convert, knowing that a too early slip would turn a cult seduction into an hilarious farce, which even the least knowledgeable Christians would scoff at and mock.

There is a video of one of their professors teaching it, and calling it "milk before meat" one piece of the training is to not answer the question the subject asks, but the question that they should have asked, you will see these techniques used here by Mormons.

Oh my. Here we go.

First: To defend logismoi in some circumstances is not to say that syllogism provide ALL truth. So to concede that some perception of truth comes through means other than logismoi is not to abandon syllogisms entirely.

Now, syllogisms are about the relationship between assertions. Reasoning in general is pretty much the same. For example:

What God said is reliable.
"In the beginning ...." is a thing God said.
Therefore it is reliable.

That there is a syllogism. Your "God said it... That settles it..." conceals a syllogism.

I would hold that the primary assertions of the Faith are given by the Spirit.
The necessary insight and disposition to see their implication clearly and justly are given by the same Spirit.

I think the difference is that in our view the Spirit usually works with what we have. For example, He doesn't take the sex out of marriage, he sanctifies it and the relationship.

He doesn't take, in our view, the "syllogism" (and here we are using a kind of synedoche) out of faith; he sanctifies and directs it.

In Romans 2:15

οἵτινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως καὶ μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων, ...

Paul does not seem to condemn logismoi, though elsewhere he certainly makes an opposition.

It seems to me to deny the goodness of creation to say that reason is useless. And arguments in favor of the proposition will fail because they appeal to reason, whether they admit it or not.

this post can only have been written by someone who joins the Mormons in accusing the Universal Church of apostacy in the second century.

And the Donatists, and the Novatans, and Tetullian and the Montanists, and the Numidians, etc. There is no Universal Church with its supra-local polity to have dominion over local churches, recorded in the NT, is there? Well, I ask a rhetorical question, knowing that following that line is a debate that will now only cease when Christ comes to affirm His commands and reject presumptuous ones.

question for you, since you can judge whether someone is saved or not:

You mistakenly credit me with God-like qualities. God has reserved condemnation for himself, I only observe and evaluate as to how I ought to respond according to His counsel.

I think you've got it backward. The equation is being saved (through understanding and subscribing to as much of The Faith of Christ as He foreknows that one has determined to persistently commit trust in and forever follow Christ), to publicly and irreversibly avouch; and thus be titled as "Christian" by conduct as His bond-slave as having that vocation.

can you name three people who lived between 100ad and 1500ad who pass your test of being a Christian and therefore saved?

Not my test. The Holy Spirit witnessing with one's own spirit is the test to pass. But a negative test is failing to meet foundational precepts as delivered to the saints who heard His voice and saw His wounds. Not likely to include Clement of Alexandria (an admirer of Pantanaeus the Gnostic, and his successor as head of the Catechical School there), Origen (one of the greatest corrupting influences of the early churches, as well as upon copies of the Bible documents), or Eusebius of Caesarea, Origen's disciple and emulator.

However, if you are trying to say that the only documentation available is that preserved by the Romanists from 100 to 1500 AD, even that testifies to the flaws introduced, and of the persecutions by which the "universalists" attempted to stamp out those securely preserving and conveying the commandments and culture of Christ. But a few names come up as good candidates for heroes of The Faith: Tertullianus, Donatus, Novation, Salvius, Henry of Lausanne, Peter de Bruis, and Arnold of Brescia -- their names will never be forgotten.

However, in the end, each of us will have to answer only for one's self. Was I faithful to Him? Did I follow him all the way? Or did I follow a will o' the wisp that never really brought me securely Home?

You are right. I don't have stats. But the growth of the church in Mexico, Central America and South America has been in the millions in recent decades, with a large majority of the new converts coming from those having membership in the Catholic Church.

For a visual of this, watch the linked video clip. A "stake" is a church unit of something like 8 to 10 separate congregations. The graphic visually shows what has happened - especially since the 1960's and '70's with growth of Stakes in those mostly-Catholic countries.

Graphic Showing Growth of LDS Stakes (Collection of 8-10 local congregations)

Church membership in 1963 reached 2 million; today it is about 14.5 million. See this link.

Today, a majority of the Church's membership is outside of the USA - again, most of that growth happening in countries that have been primarily Catholic historically (Mexico, Central and South America).

Only the Catholic vision is consistent with a church guided to "all truth" through the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit.

I'm afraid that you are not ready to be honest with that same Holy Ghost who without the Bible is mute. I can show you fifty ways in which Romanism departed from The Faith once delivered to the saints. But I will not wrangle here, since only a Berean mindset will do. Though a Roman caucus was not announced with this topic, getting into a fruitless tiff is something I'd prefer not to engage in here.

With respect --

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and that He would be with us always, even unto the end of the world. the Universal Church has been here for 2,000 years just as Jesus said it would. the reason is the Church is the Body of Christ on earth, it is not a man made institution like the Moose Club or the baptist church. the groups you listed split off from the Church and fell into obscurity.
no Church that has authority over local churches? hmm, i guess you never read Acts 15 unless you think the “local” church of Jerusalem extended all the way to Antioch. i guess Paul was also a member of the local Corithian church?

i didn’t mistakenly credit you with God-like qualities, you claimed these qualities on your own. how else could you write “he has one more saving step to make......” REALLY??
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE MAN, AND YET YOU KNOW HE IS UNSAVED. GOD-LIKE QUALITY INDEED.

no you have it backwards, salvation is by grace, not anything we do, it is a gift from God.

it’s funny, all the names you listed as “candidates as heroes” all believed in baptismal regeneration. of course, ever since Peter preached in Acts 2:38, the Church has taught baptismal regeneratin, but those who teach the second century apostasy always point to baptismal regeneration as one of the evidences of apostasy. so i congratulate you on at least believing at least this doctrine of historical Christianity.

since you reject a Universal Church, it leads me to wonder if you believe anyone on earth from 95ad on had the authority to declare a canon of Scripture? if yes, who had this authority and where did the authority come from? if no, is everyone supposed to read every book that claims to be Scripture and decide on their own? and do you follow the Catholic Tradition of a 27 book NT?

Paul does not seem to condemn logismoi, though elsewhere he certainly makes an opposition.

Genesis 1:1 is not an appeal to reason. It is an opening statement. It demands faith. It is not a logical proposition. It is not part of a debate.

Is the Holy Ghost there speaking to a blank slate? Were that so, as in the Garden. But the intelligent mind is already prejudiced by sin. The Holy Ghost imparts faith to the heart as he speaks, addressing the mind, but quenching and bypassing reasonings.

Romans 12:2, 2 Cor. 10:3-6

My opinion is that acceptance of Genesis 1:1 is spiritual discernment, not a logical conclusion drawn from other facts.

The point was that the Greek-educated Alexandrians brought a lot of philosopical methodology into interpretation of the Holy Scriptures that confounded the hermeneutics of the Apostles and their disciples, laying the ground for apostasy through following the world's rather than honoring, keeping, and transmitting Christ's commands without change.

With respect --

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.