Talking to Mormon - how to respond?

[cbaltazar]

I posted a link to the most recent interview with Patrick Madrid about Mormons on my facebook account stating that I thought it was very interesting considering I spent nearly 8 years in the LDS church and did not know much of the doctrine. A friend & former colleague of mine responded with the following:

"Well, I'm sure you knew I was going to listen to this! A very interesting listen mainly because I didn't know that the Catholic church had joined the ranks of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Southern Baptists, and other Christian churches in their effort to refute the Mormon church's claims. The problem I have with this approach, which I think is a very natural reaction to our missionaries' preparation, is that I think a religion should be spiritual and felt through the heart in addition to making sense intellectually. Debating doctrine will only get any person so far in the quest for truth. Without a heartfelt conversion, debating doctrine is just a war of words that ruins relationships rather than bringing them together. Just my opinion. And thank you for sharing! Really, I though it was interesting."

I'm not exactly sure how to respond. I do agree with him that one should feel the Holy Spirit in order to have faith without proper doctrine, how do you know what you are feeling & believing is true? Does anyone have any good recommendations on how to delicately approach the issue. I would also like to approach another colleague of mine that is Mormon, as a brief discussion came up, but I am not quite sure how to begin a discussion.

Thank you!

[HeavenlyRoses]

So your friend is saying that the Catholic Church is trying to refute the LDS church as a reaction to the missionaries' preparation. I'm not sure I understand. Do I need to listen to the interview?
Is your friend trying to say that refuting LDS is just debating doctrine without having a heartfelt conversion (on the part of whom)? Or that any criticism/refutation of any church is just a debate and meaningless because it doesn't involve the heart?
Did you take the comments to be a dig at you?

I'm a curious cat, just looking for clarification

[FidesSpesCarita]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyRoses

So your friend is saying that the Catholic Church is trying to refute the LDS church as a reaction to the missionaries' preparation. I'm not sure I understand. Do I need to listen to the interview?
Is your friend trying to say that refuting LDS is just debating doctrine without having a heartfelt conversion (on the part of whom)? Or that any criticism/refutation of any church is just a debate and meaningless because it doesn't involve the heart?
Did you take the comments to be a dig at you?

I'm a curious cat, just looking for clarification

X2

Also, debating doctrine is one of the fundamental points of true dialogue. The necessity of finding the differences in the fundamental teachings of each church. How else do we discover what other churches believe without debate/discussion?

Is your trying friend saying that anyone who debates mormons and refutes mormon teaching is not engaged in honest searching for the truth? That might be what is intended...


FSC

[Ponyguy]

I've had a few Mormon (and JW) "missionaries" get pretty wound up and forceful in their attempts at my "conversion." (Pal, it would be a lot easier for you to swap the faces of Lincoln and Washington on Mount Rushmore.)

Once things get out of control, it's probably best to respond with a surprise right cross, followed by a left uppercut.

[cbaltazar]

FSC -- Thank you for the response. I will get some further clarification from him.

[EricFilmer]

My approach would be to ask if a "heartfelt conversion" is really the way to know truth. The problem is that people of all religions will describe emotional sensations they derive from their religious practices as a "heartfelt conversion."

Let us say that I am a secular person who is considering giving religion a shot. I invite a Catholic, a Protestant, a Hindu, a Muslim and a Mormon over for a luncheon, and I ask each person why I should chose his religion. If the Mormon says, "Because I had a heartfelt conversion!" then everyone else in the room would say, "Well, I had a heartfelt conversion while practicing MY religion, too!" As much as I respect this sort of phenomenon, there is no way that the Holy Spirit would set up such a shakey method for knowing truth. What makes the Mormon's experience anymore credible that the other peoples? And if everyone's experience is equally credible (as the means of discerning truth) then it doesn't matter which religion I choose, because they all must be true.

[cbaltazar]

Here is our conversation thus far:

Mormon's response to your questions: "My only point is that to have an effective doctrinal debate, you need to
bring your faith and heart to the table. And you have to be willing to have both attacked in a debate in order for it to be productive. You have to be willing to lose both. Otherwise, it's just words being thrown back and
forth with no mutual understanding. I'm just ... See Morepersonally not a fan of it.
If someone is interested in learning about the church I belong to, I'd be
happy to share what it's all about. But I am not interested in Bible
bashing. It can become very contentious and uncomfortable. And as a missionary, I tried to find those that would be genuinely interested in what
I preached and if they had a different opinion, I didn't try to outreason
them. I tried to respect their opinion and religion and move on. To me,
truth is something that is understood in the mind, but confirmed in the
heart, and you can't feel those confirming feelings in a contentious environment. That's my point."

Me: I definitely agree that you should bring both your heart and faith to the table. However, part of one's faith is what is believed and you should be able to have reason behind that.
Do you feel that a "heart felt" conversion is really the way to know truth?
Then I gave the example about the secular person asking which religion to choose.

Him: "The difference is in the question that we ask everyone who is interested in learning about or joining the LDS church: will you pray and ask Heavenly Father with real intent if the things which are being taught are true? Because we don't want anyone to take our word for it. We want everyone to find out for themselves through prayer and through a ... See Morewitness from the Holy Ghost that our church is true. That is why we don't usually debate others or criticize other churches. We don't believe you can receive a spiritual witness of the truth by arguing. We believe it can only come through prayer and humility."

Me: "I personally think it is more than just needing to pray about it. How can someone truly discern between the Holy Spirit or other sources if they do not have the Holy Spirit yet? But, I guess that is your opinion. I agree that everyone does need to discern for themselves. I'm not arguing with that point. But, I think that people should be ... See Moretaught the truth which comes through sound doctrine - The Bible, Church history, and tradition. I think many people can & have mistaken what they thought to be the Holy Spirit or God telling them to do something, so they did it thinking it was from God, when truly it wasn't. "

At this point I think I'm beating a dead horse.

[eagle_eye222001]

Probably beating a dead horse.

Since the Mormons lose on reason, and evidence, the only way they can convert people, is to appeal to the emotions and push reason and evidence aside.

Ironically the Mormon doesn't want the conversation to end up in Bible bashing (something they would likely lose fast and thus why they avoid it) where he/she supposes no one wins, however by this conversation, he/she is not listening to you and is not following a logical conversation. You and the Mormon are arguing.....exactly what was supposed to be avoided! Feel free to point this out! You might as well be verse slinging!

Since they are not following a logical conversation, the conversation is over and you might as well try to convert a stone wall.

At this point, I would simply question their authority on why reason must be tossed out the window (like is this Biblical or did some god come down as say this?) and simply stonewall the conversation until you get a satisfactory answer. Probably can phrase it better than I did, but don't let them escape that answer. If you do, the conversation will keep going in circles. If you demand a good reason, you go on the offense and they will have to come up with something. When they come up with something....simply question it until they reach something solid....which I highly suspect won't happen.

Just my thoughts. I realize we need to be delicate sometimes, but at some point a line has to be drawn, and we need to defend our faith and not allow others to run us in circles.

[EricFilmer]

Originally Posted by cbaltazar

Do you feel that a "heart felt" conversion is really the way to know truth?
Then I gave the example about the secular person asking which religion to choose.

Him: "The difference is in the question that we ask everyone who is interested in learning about or joining the LDS church: will you pray and ask Heavenly Father with real intent if the things which are being taught are true? Because we don't want anyone to take our word for it. We want everyone to find out for themselves through prayer and through a ... See Morewitness from the Holy Ghost that our church is true. That is why we don't usually debate others or criticize other churches. We don't believe you can receive a spiritual witness of the truth by arguing. We believe it can only come through prayer and humility."

Here we can definitely see the lack of any logical reasoning. And although faith requires more from us than logical reasoning, God gave us the human intellect as a gift to help us discern truth. This, as we know, is why Catholics believe that faith and reason both play their part in our knowledge of God.

Let us take a moment to outline how this person treated your question.

Basically, here is an outline of the question:

1) He believes that a hearthfelt conversion indicates the truths of Mormonism.
2) Religious people who are not Mormon can claim to have had heartfelt conversion while practicing their own religions.
3) How does a Mormon's heartfelt conversion indicate proof of truth while the heartfelt conversions of non-Mormons do not?

In his response to the question (as we can see in the above quote) is that, basically, a person should pray to God for guidance to determine whose heartfelt conversion reveals truth and whose does not. At least that it sounds like he is saying in my opinion.

Now going back to the initial example. The question is not, "Is a heartfelt conversion" important. Nor is the question about the importance of praying to God for guidance. The question is whether or not such an experience is the way to know truth.

There was a man once who almost drown while swimming in the ocean. He was never very religious but at that moment he prayed to God to save him. A wave came up and carried him to shore. He decided to spend his entire life getting serious about religion and prayed to God to guide him in knowing what religion to follow. Shortly after that, someone showed him a religious book, and he read it and felt, through a "heartfelt conversion" that this book was the revelation of God. The man was Cat Stevens (the folk singer from the 70s), the book was the Koran and he became a Muslim. So my question for the Mormon would be, "How is Cat Steven's experience of a heartfelt conversion not authentic (in terms of discerning truth) while a Mormon's is?" After all, Cat Stevens did what the Mormon (in the above quote) said to do. And if Cat Steven's heartfelt conversion was authentic, and a Mormon's heartfelt conversions are likewise authentic, then doesn't that mean both Islam and Mormonism are both true (even though they have opposing doctrines)? Once again, as important as a heartfelt sensation is for a spiritual person, can it truly be the tool for discerning truth?

But I agree that this is probably beating a dead horse.

[Ginkgo100]

Originally Posted by cbaltazar

I posted a link to the most recent interview with Patrick Madrid about Mormons on my facebook account stating that I thought it was very interesting considering I spent nearly 8 years in the LDS church and did not know much of the doctrine. A friend & former colleague of mine responded with the following:

"Well, I'm sure you knew I was going to listen to this! A very interesting listen mainly because I didn't know that the Catholic church had joined the ranks of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Southern Baptists, and other Christian churches in their effort to refute the Mormon church's claims. The problem I have with this approach, which I think is a very natural reaction to our missionaries' preparation, is that I think a religion should be spiritual and felt through the heart in addition to making sense intellectually. Debating doctrine will only get any person so far in the quest for truth. Without a heartfelt conversion, debating doctrine is just a war of words that ruins relationships rather than bringing them together. Just my opinion. And thank you for sharing! Really, I though it was interesting."

I'm not exactly sure how to respond. I do agree with him that one should feel the Holy Spirit in order to have faith without proper doctrine, how do you know what you are feeling & believing is true? Does anyone have any good recommendations on how to delicately approach the issue. I would also like to approach another colleague of mine that is Mormon, as a brief discussion came up, but I am not quite sure how to begin a discussion.

Thank you!

Having not read other responses yet... here are my immediate thoughts.

First, your LDS friend's response is rather testy, so I think he(?) has some hurt behind it. Charity is of paramount importance in your response.

That said, this demonstrates the biggest problem I have with Mormonism, really the root of the problem: they substitute logic for a "funny internal feeling." That "f.i.f." is enough to cause them to ignore any number of logical and anthropological inconsistencies in their beliefs.

If a religion is true, then its authoritative statements about reality must be both logically consistent and consistent with observed reality. If these consistencies are absent, then I would have to question whether any "f.i.f." really comes from God. (It could be from one's own emotions, or from a bad burrito the night before, or even from the Adversary.)

Your friend says religion should be "felt through the heart in addition to making sense intellectually," but where does Mormonism make sense intellectually? Why would there be "another testament" of Jesus Christ that is completely unheralded in the Old and New Testaments? (Consider that the events of the New Testament are thoroughly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.) Why is the religion esoteric (i.e. with hidden knowledge available only to initiates)? Why are the peoples and events of the Mormon scriptures not backed up by archaeology? (... At all?) You can find any number of unsolvable stumpers that are part of LDS belief on this site. If the fundamentals of a faith are impossible, no amount of "f.i.f." should be enough to make a person devoted to it.

The fact that your friend mentioning ruined relationships, however, really makes me wonder whether he is open to discussion at this time. Above all, pray for your friend, that his (her?) heart will be opened.

[cbaltazar]

Gingko - You make a very good point. I think he is responding with some hurt feelings. He converted to Mormonism and went on a mission and is very devoted to the church. I definitely agree about the f.i.f you mention. I had those f.i.f. when I was in the Mormon church (from ages 7 - 16), but once I began studying the Catholic faith and comparing it to Mormon beliefs I found it just didn't add up. I am a very logical person and I do not feel that God grants the graces of having those "f.i.f." to everyone. Definitely prayer is needed. I think he is very closed to this converstaion at this point - especially after reading his last response:

"Article of Faith 11 of the LDS Church: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow allmen the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. We don't judge others in their decisions to worship how they want to orwhere they want to. Yes, we claim to be the only true and living church of Jesus Christ on earth today and more than 300,000 people a year from allover the world receive what we call a testimony (a communication from God through the Holy Ghost) of that fact, but we believe also that men are freeto worship according to their own consciences. That's a great gift that Godhas given all of us: moral agency - the ability to choose for ourselves.We believe God wants all of His children to return to Him, but we also knowthat everyone's decisions won't necessarily lead everyone back to Hispresence. It is our responsiblity to offer everyone the opportunity tochoose for themselves, but we can't force anyone to do anything. Forwhatever reason, Cat Stevens decided to follow his conscience to the Muslim religion. I don't know why it did, but it did, and I firmly support his decision to worship how his conscience dictates to him. Now, having saidthat, anything that commands someone to do something contrary to God's commandments cannot come from Him. For example, Muslim terrorists certainly aren't being inspired by God to kill innocent people. But if a person's conscience leads them to the Muslim religion, so be it. It's not my placeto judge. However, I do believe every person can, potentially, receive a testimony ofour church. But it's up to each person to be humble, patient, and sincere enough to receive it. And I believe these words of Joseph Smith talking about his vision is whateach person ultimately feels when he or she tries to explain to someone else about the validity of the testimony they receive: "Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with oneof the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not onlylightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any moreof them.I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great dealof prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause ofgreat persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscureboy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me,and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how verystrange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age,and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scantymaintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popularsects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the mostbitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it wasoften the cause of great sorrow to myself.However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw alight, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him;some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could notmake it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet heknew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him thinkor believe otherwise.So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking al lmanner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in myheart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation. "

...continued in next post.

[cbaltazar]

It's an experience that is usually so powerful that it moves people to change their lives. But it's also something that needs to be nurtured and allowed to grow through prayer, scripture study, obedience to God's commandments and service to others. I'm not saying that study is not important. Remember I said that truth should be confirmed through the mindAND the heart. My only point is that those that try to merely refute theLDS church's claims with words and requests for proof end up losing sight ofthe fact that God confirms truth through feelings as well and that's not something that can be changed unless someone is willing to put their faith on the table to be ridiculed. I think this is a good time too to explain a little bit of the Book ofMormon. The subtitle of the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ. It's not a testament of Joseph Smith or Mormon, but of our Savior Jesus Christ. And through the study of it, combined with the Bible, one can understand the truth of Jesus Christ's gospel because as we know that through the mouths of two or three witnesses every word may be established.We believe the Book of Mormon helps us understand better the true meaning oft he Bible. Truth should be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow andshouldn't change with other people's interpretation, and thus we feel thatthe Book of Mormon helps cement the true meaning of the Bible rather than keeping it open to various interpretations which can confuse and confound people. Additionally, if you want some more "proof" of our Church's claims, reading, studying, and praying about the Book of Mormon is another way to further validate our Church's claims. As Joseph Smith said in the book's introduction: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any otherbook." And I add my own experience and witness that what he said about theBook of Mormon is true because I have read and studied the Book of Mormon many times and what it teaches truly does bring someone closer to God than any other book. Ultimately, the proof of our religion is in the lives of those that actually live it. And the "fundamentalists" aren't the ones that actually live it. I'm talking about those that are active in their membership, live their lives according to the standards of the church,perform service to others, and stand up for what's right. I don't know what more anyone would want out of a religion than to make bad people good and good people even better."

I have some thoughts about his response, but do not have the time at the moment to comment. I would love to know what you all are thinking!

[EricFilmer]

I read through his entire response. Based on my understanding of his statement, he still feels that a heartfelt conversion is important, but then he admits that when anyone has a heartfelt conversion they should follow it up with prayer, study and such in order to validate it.

Once again, the proponents of any religion can make the same claim. This person seems to be saying that if you have a heartfelt conversion, follow it up with prayer and study, and come to the conclusion that Mormonism is the "one true church" then your spiritual journey was an authentic journey into truth. The implication is that if you do this and do not end up being a Mormon, then you messed up on your spiritual journey somewhere. So his system for discerning truth is based on the premise that Mormonism is true to begin with. That is simply bad logic.

The problem is, proponents of other religions can all make the same claim. This person then spends a lot of time stressing the importance of reading the Book of Mormon. I've heard another Mormon do the same. To him, it was all about his personal testimony and how once he read the Book of Mormon, in his heart he knew it to be true. Well, Cat Stevens read the Koran and, in his heart, he felt that book was true. And as we all know, every religion has what is claimed to be sacred writings, and they all have proponents who associate heartfelt conversions and sensations of truth associated with their particular books. But these writings contradict one another in one way or another, so they can't all be true. For example, Jesus can't only be a prophet and also be God. The world cannot be eternal and also be created.

But I am not overly critical of this person's approach. He read the Book of Mormon and felt that it gave him some sort of epiphany, so of course he wants other people to do the same, hoping that people will have the same sort of epiphany. But I simply say that this cannot truly be the way to determine truth if everyone can make the same sort of claims about their particular religions.

[Returning Home]

Originally Posted by cbaltazar

I posted a link to the most recent interview with Patrick Madrid about Mormons on my facebook account stating that I thought it was very interesting considering I spent nearly 8 years in the LDS church and did not know much of the doctrine. A friend & former colleague of mine responded with the following:

"Well, I'm sure you knew I was going to listen to this! A very interesting listen mainly because I didn't know that the Catholic church had joined the ranks of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Southern Baptists, and other Christian churches in their effort to refute the Mormon church's claims. The problem I have with this approach, which I think is a very natural reaction to our missionaries' preparation, is that I think a religion should be spiritual and felt through the heart in addition to making sense intellectually. Debating doctrine will only get any person so far in the quest for truth. Without a heartfelt conversion, debating doctrine is just a war of words that ruins relationships rather than bringing them together. Just my opinion. And thank you for sharing! Really, I though it was interesting."

I'm not exactly sure how to respond. I do agree with him that one should feel the Holy Spirit in order to have faith without proper doctrine, how do you know what you are feeling & believing is true? Does anyone have any good recommendations on how to delicately approach the issue. I would also like to approach another colleague of mine that is Mormon, as a brief discussion came up, but I am not quite sure how to begin a discussion.

Thank you!

Mormonism is inherently deceptive because, among other reasons, while they use Christian terminology, they affix very different meanings to them which will confuse those who don't understand them.

I strongly recommend you and anyone else who doesn't understand the difference between Mormons and Christians to get two very good books before you engage Mormons in theological debate: Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors and Mormons Answered Verse by Verse, both by David Reed and John Farkas. They are simply written, easy to understand, and factually accurate.

They make a much better case than I can in a few posts on a public forum.

I hope this helps.