What is Holding Me Back From Converting

[Jason_J]

Hi all,

Well it's been about a year now since I first seriously considered converting to the LDS Church from the Catholic Church. Throughout this year, I've had times where I was SO sure that I would be contacting the missionaries, and SO sure that the LDS faith really was the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as times where I would be drawn back to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy (since the Orthodox Church resolves some of the issues I have with Catholicism).

So here is where I stand right now: I find much Biblical and historical support for the LDS beliefs in pre-mortal existence, continuing revelation, open canon, the simple Godhead, having apostles and prophets, baptism for the dead, the LDS interpretation of the Fall (as well as the simple fact of how could Adam and Eve be fruitful and multiply when they didn't know that they were nude), the belief that spirit is still matter, fasting (and not just abstaining from certain things). I also love the community, the emphasis on scripture and doctrinal study for ALL ages. I am also intrigued by the various supports for the Book of Mormon being what it claims to be, as well as historical evidences for LDS beliefs.

On the other hand, I still am somewhat troubled by plural marriage, not the concept itself, but understanding it in relation to the New Testament, such as verses that say that a bishop or deacon should be the husband of one wife (in 1 Timothy somewhere), etc. Also Brigham Young and Adam/God, which if I remember correctly he spoke on at a General Conference. I'm trying to understand this in the context of "the prophet will never lead us astray". Also, the Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is somewhat of an issue. While I don't necessarily firmly believe that this happens, I can understand how the Bible can be interpreted to support such a belief, and I find it interesting in parallel to the Old Testament temple, where God was present in the temple in a special way, in comparison to the Catholic belief that God is present in Catholic churches in a special way as well. Perhaps LDS have a similar belief as far as their own temples?

So, right now I'm reading the Book of Mormon (I'm in 2 Nephi) and praying about it. I've filled out the Missionary Request form on mormon.org, but haven't submitted it yet . While there's much I love about the LDS Church, and much that makes sense, the above are still troubling me, and I guess are keeping me back from actually meeting with missionaries.

Any thoughts are welcome!

[captmoroniRM]

Here's an article from "The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism" on Polygamy. It delves a little into the history of it in the Old Testament, as well as how it played out in the early days of the LDS Church. Hope it helps.

Do Mormon's Practice Polygamy

As for the Adam\God quote:

The Truth about the so-called Adam\God Doctrine

Edited January 20, 2011 by captmoroniRM
added in the second article.

[MarginOfError]

I hesitate to say what I'm about to say, because it will probably be really confusing to anyone that isn't me, but here goes.

I get that you struggle with parts of the LDS church's history. I struggle with understanding some of these aspects too. To the point, that I'm comfortable saying that, as an intellectual, if I hadn't been born into the church, I highly doubt I'd have ever joined it. There are just that many intellectual obstacles to sort out and I don't know that I'd ever be comfortable with it.

But, since I was born into the church, I learned other things before I really was exposed these obstacles. I learned to feel the spirit, the love of Christ and the comfort of the Atonement. I learned the value of service, and of reaching out to a neighbor or a friend. Most recently, as I've served in my calling (I do all the clerical and administrative stuff for my ward--that is, the non spiritual stuff), I've learned how precious and sacred are the moment when we focus our energies on the well-being of an individual.

Above all, I've become convinced that this gospel has all the tools necessary to help each and every one of us become perfected in Christ, and that it is the church with the authority to carry out the ordinances that requires. And that's the knowledge and conviction I rely on when the other things get in the way.

I don't have all the answers to things like polygamy, and I never will (though I may often pretend to on these forums). I am a member of this church because I believe that being a part of it and participating in its work makes me more Christlike, and that's all that really matters. So if you feel that membership in the church would do the same, take a chance, give it a shot, and see how it makes you feel. If it improves your life, stick with it. If it doesn't, I won't begrudge you if you let it go.

[Guest]

I hesitate to say what I'm about to say, because it will probably be really confusing to anyone that isn't me, but here goes.

I get that you struggle with parts of the LDS church's history. I struggle with understanding some of these aspects too. To the point, that I'm comfortable saying that, as an intellectual, if I hadn't been born into the church, I highly doubt I'd have ever joined it. There are just that many intellectual obstacles to sort out and I don't know that I'd ever be comfortable with it.

But, since I was born into the church, I learned other things before I really was exposed these obstacles. I learned to feel the spirit, the love of Christ and the comfort of the Atonement. I learned the value of service, and of reaching out to a neighbor or a friend. Most recently, as I've served in my calling (I do all the clerical and administrative stuff for my ward--that is, the non spiritual stuff), I've learned how precious and sacred are the moment when we focus our energies on the well-being of an individual.

Above all, I've become convinced that this gospel has all the tools necessary to help each and every one of us become perfected in Christ, and that it is the church with the authority to carry out the ordinances that requires. And that's the knowledge and conviction I rely on when the other things get in the way.

I don't have all the answers to things like polygamy, and I never will (though I may often pretend to on these forums). I am a member of this church because I believe that being a part of it and participating in its work makes me more Christlike, and that's all that really matters. So if you feel that membership in the church would do the same, take a chance, give it a shot, and see how it makes you feel. If it improves your life, stick with it. If it doesn't, I won't begrudge you if you let it go.

Hi MOE, I completely get what you are saying. Unfortunately, I felt all this when I was Catholic. Completely like this. As I'm sure Jason feels also.

Therefore, for a Catholic converting to LDS - it requires a LOT more than that.

The crux of all this is the Great Apostasy. A devout Catholic has to gain a testimony of the Great Apostasy first and foremost.

[Guest]

Jason, as far as polygamy goes... Marriage has always been a commandment from God. Whether to have one wife or more than 1 wife or no wife at all is also a commandment from God.

The Roman Catholics believe that priests shouldn't have wives. Eastern orthodox Catholics think it's okay for priests to have wives. The LDS at a point in their history believed some faithful members were commanded to take on more than 1 wife.

In the OT, prophets and kings were given wives through God's instruction. In the NT, 1 wife was the instruction.

It is clear throughout biblical history that the number of spouses a man takes on is under the direction of God. This is the same with the early history of the LDS church. God commanded Joseph Smith to take on more than 1 wife. This was not a commandment given to everybody. It was a commandment given for a purpose. Just like the blacks in the Priesthood, the purposes of this is always a big topic for speculation.

[MarginOfError]

Hi MOE, I completely get what you are saying. Unfortunately, I felt all this when I was Catholic. Completely like this. As I'm sure Jason feels also.

Therefore, for a Catholic converting to LDS - it requires a LOT more than that.

The crux of all this is the Great Apostasy. A devout Catholic has to gain a testimony of the Great Apostasy first and foremost.

That's why I included in the proposition the conditional "if." As in, if he feels that it will bring him closer to Christ, etc. If he doesn't feel like it will, then I'd encourage him to stay where he's at.

Another way of saying it would be that I don't want him to join the LDS church because it makes the most logical sense. I want him to join because it feels right spiritually to do so, regardless of whether or not he has come to terms with polygamy.

[Jason_J]

The crux of all this is the Great Apostasy. A devout Catholic has to gain a testimony of the Great Apostasy first and foremost.

Yes, this is very important. And when scriptural verses are cited as evidence of an Apostasy of the Christian Church, we must remember that we're not talking about individual apostasies or even large percentages of people apostatizing. The LDS claim is about an Apostasy of the church. This is why many of the verses cited aren't that convincing for me, since they tend to deal with the former, not the latter.

[HiJolly]

Yes, this is very important. And when scriptural verses are cited as evidence of an Apostasy of the Christian Church, we must remember that we're not talking about individual apostasies or even large percentages of people apostatizing. The LDS claim is about an Apostasy of the church. This is why many of the verses cited aren't that convincing for me, since they tend to deal with the former, not the latter.

I don't like attacking other religions, but in this case perhaps an example would be ok....

For me, the Donatist heresy is a case where it was the Church itself that made an apostate choice as in

"To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults."

from the wiki article Donatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HiJolly

[Jason_J]

I don't like attacking other religions, but in this case perhaps an example would be ok....

For me, the Donatist heresy is a case where it was the Church itself that made an apostate choice as in

"To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults."

from the wiki article Donatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HiJolly

Thanks, yes, this is an important issue for Catholics (and perhaps everyone). The premise is basically that the sacraments are efficacious "ex opere operato", meaning that by doing the actions of the sacrament (obviously by an ordained minister in ordinary circumstances), the sacrament has its desired effect. The point is that Christ is ultimately the minister of all of the sacraments.

I tend to find such a position makes sense. For example, if I am going to be baptized, if the minister is in a state of sin, would the baptism still be valid? How do LDS view this? Also, its important to note this from the wiki article-"Although such a sacrament would be valid, and the grace effective, it is nonetheless sinful for any priest to celebrate a sacrament while himself in a state of sin.". The question ultimately is, how can I be sure that I am really receiving valid, efficacious sacraments/ordinances if they depend on the faith of the minister to make them efficacious? What about a situation where I participated in an ordinance where the minister was in a state of sin and was not being faithful, did I not receive the ordinance?

I hope that sheds some light on why Catholicism has that position, and I'd be interested in hearing how LDS view it as well :).

[Guest]

Thanks, yes, this is an important issue for Catholics (and perhaps everyone). The premise is basically that the sacraments are efficacious "ex opere operato", meaning that by doing the actions of the sacrament (obviously by an ordained minister in ordinary circumstances), the sacrament has its desired effect. The point is that Christ is ultimately the minister of all of the sacraments.

I tend to find such a position makes sense. For example, if I am going to be baptized, if the minister is in a state of sin, would the baptism still be valid? How do LDS view this? Also, its important to note this from the wiki article-"Although such a sacrament would be valid, and the grace effective, it is nonetheless sinful for any priest to celebrate a sacrament while himself in a state of sin.". The question ultimately is, how can I be sure that I am really receiving valid, efficacious sacraments/ordinances if they depend on the faith of the minister to make them efficacious? What about a situation where I participated in an ordinance where the minister was in a state of sin and was not being faithful, did I not receive the ordinance?

I hope that sheds some light on why Catholicism has that position, and I'd be interested in hearing how LDS view it as well :).

I don't understand how the Donatists have anything to do with the Great Apostasy...

The Catholic and the LDS faiths share the same doctrine on ex opere operato in that one's worthiness is predicated upon one's conversion and not the worthiness of the priest adminstering the ordinance.

At the same time, both LDS and Catholic share the same doctrine of Priesthood Authority - that one needs to be authorized to perfom the ordinance for it to be valid. Now, one can hold the keys of the Priesthood yet not be worthy to wield it. Performing an ordinance while unworthy is a sin against the Priest and not the person receiving the ordinance.

Now, the issue is - we believe that the Catholic church lost Priesthood Authority at the death of the last Apostle. The keys got handed down to Joseph Smith when John the Baptist baptized Joseph and handed him the Aaronic keys.

Yeah, for a Catholic - that's a big thing to swallow... it took me 3 years to "get it". And no, I didn't get there by reading and studying alone either...

[Jason_J]

I don't understand how the Donatists have anything to do with the Great Apostasy...

The Catholic and the LDS faiths share the same doctrine on ex opere operato in that one's worthiness is predicated upon one's conversion and not the worthiness of the priest adminstering the ordinance.

At the same time, both LDS and Catholic share the same doctrine of Priesthood Authority - that one needs to be authorized to perfom the ordinance for it to be valid. Now, one can hold the keys of the Priesthood yet not be worthy to wield it. Performing an ordinance while unworthy is a sin against the Priest and not the person receiving the ordinance.

Now, the issue is - we believe that the Catholic church lost Priesthood Authority at the death of the last Apostle. The keys got handed down to Joseph Smith when John the Baptist baptized Joseph and handed him the Aaronic keys.

Yeah, for a Catholic - that's a big thing to swallow... it took me 3 years to "get it". And no, I didn't get there by reading and studying alone either...

Okay thanks, that's good to know.

3 years...yeah I can understand why. It's been almost that long for me, on and off. How long did you study with the missionaries before you were baptized, if you don't mind me asking.

It's always good to hear from former knowledgeable, practicing Catholics on this (I believe I had a thread awhile back on this), which is also why I'm rereading "Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest", though I still have some issues with parts of that book, as found in my thread in the Books sub-forum.

[bytebear]

It's interesting I find this thread today. Just yesterday I was reading a book online that I think will really help you in your journey. It's the story of a husband and wife's conversion from Catholicism to Mormonism. I encourage you to read it. It's split up into two parts. First is their personal story, and the second is a comparison of Catholicism and Mormonism. It's very even handed, and you can tell they have a great respect and reverence for Catholicism.

Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest: A ... - Google Books

[Jason_J]

It's interesting I find this thread today. Just yesterday I was reading a book online that I think will really help you in your journey. It's the story of a husband and wife's conversion from Catholicism to Mormonism. I encourage you to read it. It's split up into two parts. First is their personal story, and the second is a comparison of Catholicism and Mormonism. It's very even handed, and you can tell they have a great respect and reverence for Catholicism.

Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest: A ... - Google Books

Hi bytebear,

Thank you for the suggestion. I actually have owned that book for about a year now, and actually provided a brief review of it on this forum a year ago, found here. I have been reading it again lately, as I agree that it is helpful, though, as you can tell from my review, I have some issues with parts of it.

Thanks again :)

[Guest]

Okay thanks, that's good to know.

3 years...yeah I can understand why. It's been almost that long for me, on and off. How long did you study with the missionaries before you were baptized, if you don't mind me asking.

It's always good to hear from former knowledgeable, practicing Catholics on this (I believe I had a thread awhile back on this), which is also why I'm rereading "Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest", though I still have some issues with parts of that book, as found in my thread in the Books sub-forum.

I didn't "formally" study with the missionaries. I invite them to dinner to hopefully give them a "homey" dinner feel. I've always been impressed by their willingness at age 19, early 20's to put their lives on hold for 2 years and serve God as a missionary. But, my rule has always been - do not talk to me about the church unless I specifically ask you a question.

I received the first 3 discussions in bits and pieces through several missionaries - the 3rd discussion is when they break out the plastic cups to represent doctrines of the church and then they pile it up like a pyramid with Jesus on top then they pull out one doctrine and the cups would come tumbling down... this was the discussion on Apostasy and I always get hung up on it. I didn't want to go any further.

There is a book called The Great Apostasy which is a small book that discusses it in some detail. It's not an easy book to read for a Catholic - for every claim in the book, there's a counter-claim as a Catholic. So, it's not really a book to be read like a textbook or history book or something like that. I knelt down and pleaded with God to guide me. I can't really explain it - it is very personal to me. When I recount the event here or anywhere else, it just sounds hokey, you know? Like those shows on TV where some minister would touch a guy's head and they would fall on the floor...

Nevertheless, it was the first step in my conversion. It took another year before I asked to be baptized.

So, what I'm trying to say is - if you study all these stuff with just plain reasoning - like a history or mathematics class, it's not going to be enough. You will have to go through some spiritual experience to get you there. Because, if you just follow plain reason, you wouldn't be LDS, you could possibly end up in one of the protestant non-denominational sects, but LDS would be a big leap for you.

Without that spiritual experience, things like polygamy and such will continue to plague your testimony. We are experienced in that - as Catholics - fighting off the millions of anti-Catholic sentiments all over the place, and it is easy for us as Catholics to do so, because we have a testimony of the guidance of the Holy Spirit strong in us. So that, my conversion to LDS is not at all anti-Catholic... if you understand what I mean.

I love the Catholic church and will continue to do so.

Edited January 21, 2011 by anatess

[bytebear]

Hi bytebear,

Thank you for the suggestion. I actually have owned that book for about a year now, and actually provided a brief review of it on this forum a year ago, found here. I have been reading it again lately, as I agree that it is helpful, though, as you can tell from my review, I have some issues with parts of it.

Thanks again :)

I read your review. I especially liked your points about the Trinity and the three being separate persons. It wasn't until I read How Wide the Divide did I fully understand the traditional Trinitarian belief, and I wish more Trinitarians fully understood their own doctrine. It would help bridge beliefs.

[HiJolly]

Thanks, yes, this is an important issue for Catholics (and perhaps everyone). The premise is basically that the sacraments are efficacious "ex opere operato", meaning that by doing the actions of the sacrament (obviously by an ordained minister in ordinary circumstances), the sacrament has its desired effect. The point is that Christ is ultimately the minister of all of the sacraments.

The LDS Church agrees with this position. If we were to leave it at that, there would be no point to my previous post.

I tend to find such a position makes sense. For example, if I am going to be baptized, if the minister is in a state of sin, would the baptism still be valid? How do LDS view this?

Me too, as far as it goes.

As for validity, we take it thusly: If the LDS Church knows the minister is in a state of sin, then the minister is relieved of his duties; If the Church does not know, then the sacraments are considered valid.

Also, its important to note this from the wiki article-"Although such a sacrament would be valid, and the grace effective, it is nonetheless sinful for any priest to celebrate a sacrament while himself in a state of sin.". The question ultimately is, how can I be sure that I am really receiving valid, efficacious sacraments/ordinances if they depend on the faith of the minister to make them efficacious? What about a situation where I participated in an ordinance where the minister was in a state of sin and was not being faithful, did I not receive the ordinance?

You did.

The difference lies in the institutional decision of the RCC to *not* relieve and/or excommunicate ministers, etc. from their duties if they are in sin and are non-repentant. Donatism, which supports removing known un-worthy priesthood holders from practice (until they had shown a repentant spirit/heart/deeds) was declared a heresy by the Church. And that's the apostate action I am trying to demonstrate. It was institutional.

I hope that sheds some light on why Catholicism has that position, and I'd be interested in hearing how LDS view it as well :).

I well know it, Jason_J. Hopefully I have pointed out the difference clearly.

HiJolly

[Jason_J]

The difference lies in the institutional decision of the RCC to *not* relieve and/or excommunicate ministers, etc. from their duties if they are in sin and are non-repentant. Donatism, which supports removing known un-worthy priesthood holders from practice (until they had shown a repentant spirit/heart/deeds) was declared a heresy by the Church. And that's the apostate action I am trying to demonstrate. It was institutional.

Ah, that wasn't clear from your original post.

I'm curious as to the source for the claim that there was an institutional decision by the Catholic Church to not remove ministers that were in sin and are unrepentant. This isn't clear from the wikipedia article.

The reason why Donatism was declared a heresy is because, as we see in the article, it claimed that sacraments performed by a minister in sin are invalid. From the article:

"Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults."

So, one couldn't really be sure whether they were receiving valid sacraments/ordinances, since how would they know if the minister was in a state of sin? The article doesn't address the issue of excommunicating unrepentant ministers or relieving them from their duties. The Catholic Church of course has a long standing tradition of laicizing ministers and/or excommunicating those who commit serious sins and are unrepentant.

[Guest]

The difference lies in the institutional decision of the RCC to *not* relieve and/or excommunicate ministers, etc. from their duties if they are in sin and are non-repentant. Donatism, which supports removing known un-worthy priesthood holders from practice (until they had shown a repentant spirit/heart/deeds) was declared a heresy by the Church. And that's the apostate action I am trying to demonstrate. It was institutional.

HiJolly

HiJolly, there is no difference between LDS and RCC on this sense. The RCC will relieve/ex-communicate Priests from their duties if they are in sin and are non-repentant. That's always been clear in the faith. Ex-communication - like in the LDS faith - is not a punishment. It is a protection for both the sinner and the church.

As Jason pointed out - the heresy is the idea that one's ordinance is rendered invalid because of the unworthiness of the priest wielding the power. If unworthiness is not known by the people involved in the ordinance, prior to the ordinance being performed, the ordinance is valid.

The thing you might be talking about is the difference between LDS and RCC as far as priesthood power is concerned. In the RCC - not all males can be endowed with Priesthood power. Therefore, you are either a priest or a lay person (no priesthood power). Now, if you are endowed with Priesthood power in the RCC, the only way you can be relieved of that power is by ex-communication. This is actually the same as in the LDS. And like the LDS, you may still hold the Priesthood but, because of unworthiness will not have the authority to use it. Priests who transgress/sin remain in the Priesthood Order but will have to go through a repentance process with a lot of help from the Bishops/Archbishops. This repentance process can take a few days or a few years depending on the transgression. At this time, the Priest cannot officiate mass or do other services that requires priesthood authority. He can, of course, do a lot of service that does not require priesthood authority - like serve the community, assist in communion, offer a sermon, etc. People outside the faith sometimes think that the Bishops/Archbishops are "protecting" the sinful Priest. Well, in a way, yes. Priests in the RCC do not earn a living. They are completely dependent on the Pope for their sustenance. That includes ALL their basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. Therefore, even when they are undergoing repentance, they are still under the protection of the Pope. If the Priest is unrepentant, he will be ex-communicated.

My next-door neighbor in the Philippines was a priest who got ex-communicated and relieved of priesthood authority for not honoring his vow of celibacy. He went through years of the repentance process, even going into cloister for a little bit but he couldn't turn away from the sin, therefore, he got ex-communicated. But before he got ex-communicated he couldn't perform ordinances needing Priesthood authority for years.

Edited January 21, 2011 by anatess

[rameumptom]

Hi all,

On the other hand, I still am somewhat troubled by plural marriage, not the concept itself, but understanding it in relation to the New Testament, such as verses that say that a bishop or deacon should be the husband of one wife (in 1 Timothy somewhere), etc.

Paul stated that as counsel in his day. That a bishop should be husband of one wife, suggests that plural marriage may have occurred in NT times. But it is the prophet, under God's direction, that sets the parameters. In the Book of Mormon, Jacob condemns those entering into plural marriage, because the Lord had not approved it. He notes that monogamy is the standard, unless God commands otherwise (Jacob 2:27-30). We do not practice it, because God's norm is monogamy, and the prophets have not allowed it in 110 years.

Also Brigham Young and Adam/God, which if I remember correctly he spoke on at a General Conference. I'm trying to understand this in the context of "the prophet will never lead us astray". Also, the Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is somewhat of an issue. While I don't necessarily firmly believe that this happens, I can understand how the Bible can be interpreted to support such a belief, and I find it interesting in parallel to the Old Testament temple, where God was present in the temple in a special way, in comparison to the Catholic belief that God is present in Catholic churches in a special way as well. Perhaps LDS have a similar belief as far as their own temples?

The prophets will never lead us astray in the sense that they will not teach us anything that will keep us from exaltation. Some, such as Brigham Young, speculated in the past. Given the thousands of discourses he gave, it is amazing that he is considered controversial on only a handful of topics, none of which will keep a person from exaltation. We do not believe our prophets to be infallible. They make mistakes in some of their teachings, for instance. But we believe them to be inspired and called of God. Leading astray would be if a prophet told the members to start worshiping him instead of Christ, or if he were to tell the members to commit mass murder.

We have continuing revelation through modern prophets and apostles to ensure that doctrine is improved and corrected over time. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

The official Church stance is given here: Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

In the article, it states:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

IOW, Brigham Young's statements on Adam-God are not considered doctrine. They were never approved by the First Presidency and Twelve as doctrine. They were never included in our scriptures, nor given as a proclamation or official declaration. It is not binding on members, even if we did truly understand what it was he was trying to teach.

So, right now I'm reading the Book of Mormon (I'm in 2 Nephi) and praying about it. I've filled out the Missionary Request form on mormon.org, but haven't submitted it yet . While there's much I love about the LDS Church, and much that makes sense, the above are still troubling me, and I guess are keeping me back from actually meeting with missionaries.

Any thoughts are welcome!

Don't feel bad about having some doubts or questions. But don't let the little things distract from the key questions you should be asking:

1. Does God live?

2. Is Jesus the Christ?

3. Is the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, the word of God?

4. Was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?

5. Is President Thomas S. Monson a living prophet of God?

I believe you have already received a spiritual answer in conjunction with the first two questions. If you can receive a spiritual confirmation of the last 3, then you will be able to relax concerning the rest. You'll see that issues like plural marriage or Adam-God become tiny issues that do not really matter.

Remember that both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox have also had doctrinal issues/problems and troublesome past events, as well. The Great Schism is just one big issue. You've mentioned you agree with the simple Godhead, rather than the Trinity, which should suggest to you a concern regarding their doctrine that is bigger than a statement by Brigham Young that modern Mormons do not believe nor teach.

Which is worse: polygamy that hasn't been practiced in 110 years, or the Inquisition? You see? Such issues can be found in all religions if we look hard enough.

What is important is to look at the current core doctrines of such religions and see how we feel about them. Are such doctrines ringing true in our hearts and minds? Or do we doubt them? Is the Trinity or the Godhead the true doctrine? Was there a premortal existence or were we created ex nihilo (from nothing)? Is the Bible closed, or does God wish to reveal more truth to us today? Did Christ establish his church on the foundation of apostles and prophets, or on popes and patriarchs? Each of the things you mentioned that ring true to you that Mormonism teaches, are key doctrines of the Church.

Adam-God is only a theory that never got off the ground, so we should toss it aside and not worry about it. But the key doctrines you first mentioned are current core teachings of Mormons vs traditional Christianity. Either God is three separate persons united in one Godhead, or is Spirit without body parts and passions. God cannot be both. Either we existed before mortality, or we were created from nothing. Either there is continuing revelation or there is not. THESE are the key doctrines wherein true prophets will not lead us astray. We must decide whether such prophets are within Mormonism or another religion, or if there are no longer prophets on earth any longer.

[rameumptom]

Regarding the Great Apostasy, we can see from modern scholars how some things came about.

1. Due to the great struggle between proto-orthodox and Gnostic Christians, there was a struggle as to what was Christian belief/writings, and what was not. Gnostics were pseudo-writing or changing apostolic writings to meet their teachings. Many were receiving revelations regarding the Church (the Shepherd of Hermas is one example). No one knew what was truly approved of God. Finally, St Jerome went through the list of claimed inspired writings, tossing out dozens of books, and keeping the few we now have based upon his understanding of correct provenance, and some political decisions. He kept Hebrews and Revelation because the western Church otherwise would not go along with his compilation, for example. He rejected the book of Enoch, even though it had been used and quoted frequently by others (NT references it 39 times, see Jude 1:14-15). In sealing the Bible as complete, they closed the door on new revelation. Revelation 22:18-19 became the claim of a closed canon. This is a major cause of the apostasy: men not being able to receive continual communication with God.

2. The creeds were brought about in grand councils to establish doctrine that was not clearly defined in the Bible. Such creeds, like the Nicene Creed replaced the earlier belief in an anthropomorphic God with the Trinity. Other creeds expanded on such concepts, such as at Chalcedon, which explained the duality of Christ. These explained that God is of another substance than all his creations, so we can never be like God. This is very different than Paul's teachings that we are the children of God, heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. So, here we see another major apostate event: men not understanding their true relationship with God.

Apostasy does not mean that everything was lost. Only important portions required to continue the Lord's work were lost. Without continuing revelation through living prophets, the people could not continue receiving God's will concerning them. Revelation or vertical guidance was replaced with horizontal guidance: philosophy of men. Without continuing revelation, key doctrines had to be established by committee/council, rather than prophetic inspiration: such as the Trinity.

Apostasy continued as we see in the Inquisition, periods of time when the Catholic Church had leadership problems (three popes who excommunicated one another), and Protestant beliefs such as TULIP (limited atonement, predestination, etc). Protestants rejected specific priesthood and prophetic authority, exclaiming a "priesthood of believers" instead. This pushed the gospel even further away from Christ's teaching in the Bible. At least the RCC/Eastern Orthodox tried to continue the priesthood down through the ages, regardless of the schisms and issues that may have broken that line along the way.

All of these events and issues screamed for a Restoration of the lost teachings and doctrines. That issues like baptism for the dead was lost to the ages shows an apostasy occurred. It could only be restored, not just rediscovered by Biblical philosophers. Otherwise they would have re-instituted it centuries ago. The same with the temple and its rites. They needed to be restored. There is archaeological and written evidence that early Christians had secret/sacred rites, not known by the lay members. These were lost over the millennium.

So, yes, there was an apostasy. What is amazing is how well the RCC and other traditional Christians preserved what they had of the gospel truths. We owe them a debt of gratitude for preserving and promoting the Bible throughout the ages of history as best they could. But there comes a time when man must look and see if there is now a greater truth available to them than the ancient teachings of tradition.

[Guest]

Regarding the Great Apostasy, we can see from modern scholars how some things came about.

1. Due to the great struggle between proto-orthodox and Gnostic Christians, there was a struggle as to what was Christian belief/writings, and what was not. Gnostics were pseudo-writing or changing apostolic writings to meet their teachings. Many were receiving revelations regarding the Church (the Shepherd of Hermas is one example). No one knew what was truly approved of God. Finally, St Jerome went through the list of claimed inspired writings, tossing out dozens of books, and keeping the few we now have based upon his understanding of correct provenance, and some political decisions. He kept Hebrews and Revelation because the western Church otherwise would not go along with his compilation, for example. He rejected the book of Enoch, even though it had been used and quoted frequently by others (NT references it 39 times, see Jude 1:14-15). In sealing the Bible as complete, they closed the door on new revelation. Revelation 22:18-19 became the claim of a closed canon. This is a major cause of the apostasy: men not being able to receive continual communication with God.

2. The creeds were brought about in grand councils to establish doctrine that was not clearly defined in the Bible. Such creeds, like the Nicene Creed replaced the earlier belief in an anthropomorphic God with the Trinity. Other creeds expanded on such concepts, such as at Chalcedon, which explained the duality of Christ. These explained that God is of another substance than all his creations, so we can never be like God. This is very different than Paul's teachings that we are the children of God, heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. So, here we see another major apostate event: men not understanding their true relationship with God.

Apostasy does not mean that everything was lost. Only important portions required to continue the Lord's work were lost. Without continuing revelation through living prophets, the people could not continue receiving God's will concerning them. Revelation or vertical guidance was replaced with horizontal guidance: philosophy of men. Without continuing revelation, key doctrines had to be established by committee/council, rather than prophetic inspiration: such as the Trinity.

Apostasy continued as we see in the Inquisition, periods of time when the Catholic Church had leadership problems (three popes who excommunicated one another), and Protestant beliefs such as TULIP (limited atonement, predestination, etc). Protestants rejected specific priesthood and prophetic authority, exclaiming a "priesthood of believers" instead. This pushed the gospel even further away from Christ's teaching in the Bible. At least the RCC/Eastern Orthodox tried to continue the priesthood down through the ages, regardless of the schisms and issues that may have broken that line along the way.

All of these events and issues screamed for a Restoration of the lost teachings and doctrines. That issues like baptism for the dead was lost to the ages shows an apostasy occurred. It could only be restored, not just rediscovered by Biblical philosophers. Otherwise they would have re-instituted it centuries ago. The same with the temple and its rites. They needed to be restored. There is archaeological and written evidence that early Christians had secret/sacred rites, not known by the lay members. These were lost over the millennium.

So, yes, there was an apostasy. What is amazing is how well the RCC and other traditional Christians preserved what they had of the gospel truths. We owe them a debt of gratitude for preserving and promoting the Bible throughout the ages of history as best they could. But there comes a time when man must look and see if there is now a greater truth available to them than the ancient teachings of tradition.

This is what I'm saying Rame... this was completely useless to me - and I have a feeling it would be for Jason as well and for every devout Catholic out there... because for everything that you post here, I can give you a counter argument from the Roman Catholic perspective. The RCC doesn't white wash their history so all this is not news to me. So that when you say, "So, yes, there was an apostasy", I can tell you, "Uhmm... No. I don't see it that way."

Therefore, just like the discussion going on in the Brigham Young thread - I can point to that and say - look, see, Brigham Young was a false prophet!

There's no reconciling the two thoughts unless you go through a spiritual experience.

[dahlia]

As a former Catholic, I found reading 'Catholic roots, Mormon Harvest ' by Eric Shuster, to be instructive. Even though I had long ago left the Church, I was raised in it and some things just run deep. The author's wife has a degree in Catholic theology and together they go doctrine by doctrine, comparing and contrasting. I expect to turn to this work often.

Maybe I won't be the best Mormon, but I was able to tell myself that some things are just history and there's nothing I can do about them now (Brigham Young), some things I'll never know, but I can look to the LDS Church as currently constructed and say that it is good. I would rather be LDS than not. I do believe Joseph Smith had a vision, but sometimes it gets a little murky after that. I think that's OK. As so many have told me, baptism is the initial step, not the last step. I will learn more and my testimony will be come stronger. All I know is that for many of my doubts, all I needed was a point to scripture. As a Catholic, I just never read the Bible in depth. There was a lot I didn't/don't know. But people point out the Scripture to me, I read for myself, and so far, I've been satisfied.

I don't think we will know every thing while we are here on earth. I'm OK with that.

[Jason_J]

As a former Catholic, I found reading 'Catholic roots, Mormon Harvest ' by Eric Shuster, to be instructive. Even though I had long ago left the Church, I was raised in it and some things just run deep. The author's wife has a degree in Catholic theology and together they go doctrine by doctrine, comparing and contrasting. I expect to turn to this work often.

Maybe I won't be the best Mormon, but I was able to tell myself that some things are just history and there's nothing I can do about them now (Brigham Young), some things I'll never know, but I can look to the LDS Church as currently constructed and say that it is good. I would rather be LDS than not. I do believe Joseph Smith had a vision, but sometimes it gets a little murky after that. I think that's OK. As so many have told me, baptism is the initial step, not the last step. I will learn more and my testimony will be come stronger. All I know is that for many of my doubts, all I needed was a point to scripture. As a Catholic, I just never read the Bible in depth. There was a lot I didn't/don't know. But people point out the Scripture to me, I read for myself, and so far, I've been satisfied.

I don't think we will know every thing while we are here on earth. I'm OK with that.

Dahlia, somewhat random, but I was reading/stalking your older posts (haha), and noticed that you are black. So am I, and I just wanted to say its great to find another black [former] Catholic here. :)

[Jason_J]

thought everyone would like to know that I submitted the Missionary Request form on Mormon.org, so we'll see how this goes...

[dahlia]

Dahlia, somewhat random, but I was reading/stalking your older posts (haha), and noticed that you are black. So am I, and I just wanted to say its great to find another black [former] Catholic here. :)

Back atcha, Jason J!