Which Religion is better, Mormonism or JW?


#1

Which Religion is more valid, Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witness’s?


#2

Over the last 200 years a number of people have claimed to be religious prophets with special spiritual authority from God. These include Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Ellen G. White (Seventh-day Adventists), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), and Joseph Smith (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Each started an organization which claimed to be the one true Christian Church, each had unique teachings, and each appealed to the Bible to some degree as their basis for spiritual authority. Yet, each “prophet’s” teachings contradict those of the others.
irr.org/MIT/jsfalpro.html


#3

neither because both are false.


#4

I’d say Mormonism. Mormonism doesn’t disallow blood transfusions. Mormons don’t officially cut off relations with those who leave the church. Mormons celebrate birthdays, Easter, Christmas and other holidays. Mormons encourage education more than JWs do. Mormons at least admit there is a personage they call the Holy Ghost which is denied by JWs. Mormons are willing to defend their country in time of war. Mormons also believe Catholics and others will have a chance at salvation while JWs believe Catholics will be doomed to non-existence forever. I don’t think it is even close.


#5

Catholic. :smiley:


#6

Dear PN1,

I was at wallgreens last night late. I was looking for a product called Crystal Light. Its a drink mix that has a sugar substitute.
There was a generic label product right next to the Crystal light.
There was also your standard product with the sugar as the main component.

Which one is most valid?


#7

Jesus gave one specific clue of how to answer this question:

(John 13:35) By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”

I recently saw a bumper sticker. It said:

“When Jesus said to love your enemies, he probably meant not to kill them”.

In his book A History of Christianity, Professor K.*S.*Latourette writes: “One of the issues on which the early Christians were at variance with the Græco-Roman world was participation in war. For the first three centuries no Christian writing which has survived to our time condoned Christian participation in war.” Edward Gibbon’s work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire states: “It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses similarly adopt a position of strict neutrality and follow the Bible principles outlined at Isaiah 2:2-4 and Matthew 26:52.


#8

Let me clarify my somewhat unclear earlier post.

There can be good things in all 3 products.

There may be more good in one over the others.

that helps me look at the real question.

Which one is for me?
Why look at which of the 2 you reject and make further comparisons?


#9

Also, for the first three centuries no Christian writing which has survived to our time condoned the eating of shoo-fly pie. The eating of shoo-fly pie is an abominable sin! It should never be done. :wink:

This is a non-argument. You cannot argue from absence. If you want to claim that early Christians were against warfare as a form of national defense, you’ll need to find a specific statement.

As for the OP’s question, having known both JW’s and Mormons and knowing something of their doctrines, I have to say that I think Mormonism is better. Although both are wrong, I think that Mormonism is much less cultish in its present form than the JW’s and it produces better people.


#10

LOL


#11

BibleSteve,

When quoting about the morality of war, why not quote what the Bible says about war, rather than a bumper sticker?

Also, if you want to talk about the Early Church, explain these quotes:

Ignatius of Antioch

“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

among others, of which I do not want to paste a litany here.

If you want to discuss this, create a new post. Don’t reply here; I hate it when my threads get de-railed, so I don’t want to do it to another.

So to keep this post on topic,

How are we to judge between Mormonism and JW, and is this even possible?

There are at least two ways I would propose to judge: truth & freedom.

As for truth, I mean which religion comes closest to the truth. At the end of truth is the Catholic Church. There is no absolute at the other end, but I think what goes best there today is the disregard and hate for God and religion in general which leads people to do evil for its own sake, such as teenage boys torturing cats for sheer pleasure in watching it be tormented.

As for freedom, I mean which religion gives us the greatest means to be free from sin and to love God without coercion or fear. Again, the Catholic Church is on the side of the freest-we have the Sacraments and the treasury of prayers and devotions that we can choose from. Although some think that, because we are a liturgical Church and write out many of our prayers, that we are limited, but, in fact, we have the most ways of worshipping God possible. I am always coming across a new devotion that I’ve never heard of before, and I’m sure that will never end. At the other end of the scale are doomsday/suicide cults, like Heaven’s Gate.

Now, when judging Mormons and JWs by the scale of truth, I cannot say. Both have too many serious errors. But I think that early Mormonism is better than present Mormonism and JWs in all its stages. So in that sense, I’d rank Mormonism higher than JW. (by “Mormonism” I mean the LDS church. The “Community of Christ” seems to be closer to original mormonism and Christianity-from what I know about them).

On the scale of freedom, I think the Mormons surpass the JWs because there is far less control over their personal activities, there is a wider range of devotions they can have, and many of their family values seem to promote a higher level of sanctity (that being said, I have serious problems with these so-called values as they are).


#12

So, based on what you just said as a Catholic-
you are asking Catholics and others to make a choice here.

In Catholic Lingo it would be called “Pick your heresy”

All heresy in the Catholic view is heresy.

So, no matter what a Catholic choses here, it will imply that there is a choice.

This is why I can not pick one or the other.

Not to mention I see no value for a Catholic to do so.

We worry more about what we believe, and not worry about what others do.

If you look at JW literature, they spend more time talking about all other religions than actually telling you what THEY believe.

I dont know what mormons do in this regard, but I think you are being hasty to make a comparison.

I have a glass of pure water, a glass of pure water with a drop of harmful bacteria in it, and another glass with a few drops of harmful bacteria.

You want the pure water right?

Is one drop of poison “better” than two?

I dont know. You are going to get ill or die from the one with one drop as easily as you will the one with 2 or 3 drops.

So, what is the point in this mental excercise?

You ultimately, pick your own poison so to speak.:wink:


#13

I think it depends on the poison.

Which is worse:

To believe that Jesus is God, though a separate being from the Father, or to believe that Jesus is both separate from the Father and not God? The latter seems worse.


#14

The problem with this analogy from a catholic lense is

  1. there is only one God with a big G

In either case you present, the trinity is being denied.

Neither can be “better” than the other

Multiple Gods or gods or any variation of the above are not compatible with Catholic thought

This is like asking would God be more pleased if I denied the Son a little bit or a lot

Denial of Christ, in any manner big or small is denial of Christ in entirety

That is Catholic thought

But, I must ask- what is the purpose of this mental excercise?

To demonize one group over another?

:confused:

I go by the teachings of the Catholic Church.

And nowhere do I see in them a barometer for gauging which heresy is worse or which heresy is better

Unless someone here knows and dont give me one early father either.
Give me a good case. A case that leaves no room for question on this.


#15

What I read into the OP is the larger question as to competition between the sects and cults. The Mormons and JWs have very little in common theologically, but they are best known as the door-knocking sects, so one can presume that they are locked in door-to-door competition with one another, same as the pesticide company rep who came to my door yesterday is locked in competition with the company I’ve been using for years.

I think it is handy from an apologetic point of view to raise this point among the Protestants and sects. To point to the competition between them makes a powerful argument in and of itself without having to introduce complicated mental gymnastics.

As far as anyone making a qualitative analysis, someone posted a quote from a Vatican document (yesterday, I think) perhaps in another thread, I can’t remember, that went into quite a lot of detail about Mormon beliefs, and showing why that religion can’t even be considered heretical because it is so far outside of orthodoxy. I gather from this that it is at least possible to make such judegements about one sect over another, and to say that this one is closer (better?) to orthodoxy than another. It seems apparent that we do that with the Protestants in general, considering most of them to be Christians, but separated brethren, and depending on the specific theological bent of any particular sect, closer or farther away from unity with Mother Church.


#16

that is like asking which poison is more effective–strychnine or cyanide?
Ravyn


#17

Agreed!

All kidding aside, I happen to agree with this statement, and still question the motive of defining a distinction between the two rejected pemises----------

Where did the Church ever say that we ought to concede one heresy as being more or less a denigration of Christ?


#18

You seem to be very confident about this. However, you have not given me any basis to accept or even entertain this position.

Untill you do, I go with Catholic Thought on this matter.

Distictions of Heresy in regard to Christ, is not a matter of who is more or less wrong.

As I said before, for fear of repeating myself, if you reject Christ in any way you reject Him in entirety.

Enough said.

Until, I am provided with evidence to the contrary.


#19

“Demonizing” is your choice of words, not mine. Ponder for a moment your screenname here, Hellisreal. If Hell is Real, then it isn’t “demonizing” to point out that there are religions abroad which may be, and most likely are, leading people there.

As for the value of pointing out the multiplicity of religions among the non-Catholic break-a-ways, I can’t believe that you don’t see the value of this. You’ve never used it when conducting a conversation with a Protestant? You seriously don’t think that it is helpful when presenting the continuity and consistency of Catholic religion and doctrine, to point out the fragmentation among Protestants that started before the reformers were growing cold in their graves?

You seem to be very confident about this. However, you have not given me any basis to accept or even entertain this position.

Untill you do, I go with Catholic Thought on this matter.

Distictions of Heresy in regard to Christ, is not a matter of who is more or less wrong.

As I said before, for fear of repeating myself, if you reject Christ in any way you reject Him in entirety.

Enough said.

Until, I am provided with evidence to the contrary.

Heretics don’t reject Christ. They usually have something wrong in their concept of Christ, but they don’t reject Him. Are you saying that all heretics are equal? That it is simply a matter of rejecting Christ? Rejecting Christ is apostasy, which is different from heresy. The Protestants are heretics, but they aren’t apostates.


#20

[quote=Allweather;2326899

]“Demonizing” is your choice of words, not mine. Ponder for a moment your screenname here, Hellisreal. If Hell is Real, then it isn’t “demonizing” to point out that there are religions abroad which may be, and most likely are, leading people there.

First and foremost, yes Hell is Real. Your conjecture that religions are leading them there is your own speculation that you are intitled to.
How can we say this when we know the CC says we dont even know if Judas is in Hell?
Religions can be false, but the members in them are another topic.
Are those religions leading them to Hell? Its entirely possible.
If it is possible, are you prepared to tell us which of the 2 in this premise will send people to hell and which will not?
If they both will, why are we making a distinction?
Hell is not going to have a ‘better’ location for members of one religion over another- Hell is an equal opportunity employer. You apply, you get the job.
Who cares if one soul has a window in their cubicle there. Its Hell we are talking about right? (J/k about the window- I dont think its going to be better for some and not for others there- its Hell)
You are aware that there will be Catholics in Hell?
If you say that a religion can send people to Hell, and they can, then you must provide the evidence that.
Rejection of Christ, is the issue.

As for the value of pointing out the multiplicity of religions among the non-Catholic break-a-ways, I can’t believe that you don’t see the value of this. You’ve never used it when conducting a conversation with a Protestant? You seriously don’t think that it is helpful when presenting the continuity and consistency of Catholic religion and doctrine, to point out the fragmentation among Protestants that started before the reformers were growing cold in their graves?

I dont understand your contention here. Where did I say or imply it would not be proper to point out the heresies that have been around even PRIOR to the so called “Reformation” (they reformed nothing- they rebelled)
I am wondering what to say about this comment? Please clarify?

Heretics don’t reject Christ. They usually have something wrong in their concept of Christ, but they don’t reject Him. Are you saying that all heretics are equal? That it is simply a matter of rejecting Christ? Rejecting Christ is apostasy, which is different from heresy. The Protestants are heretics, but they aren’t apostates.

:rotfl:

Yes, I AM saying all heretics in the Catholic view, are equal.
I am saying that a rejection of one aspect of Christ is to reject him in entirety.

The Church has spoken about Protestants.
Do not bring Protestants into this mix, the topic is JW and Mormons.

I wish we could all stay on topic here.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.