Why are Mormons so afraid of others.

[RevelationTestament]

One question: Did you read ANY of the links I provided? I can tell that you did not...or will not. That is fine, keep YOUR opinion (even if that opinion is shared by like-minded individuals) without seeing all sides...that is YOUR choice, I cannot help it that you refuse to accept or read the other sides view.

I do, however, find it very ironic that posters are routinely called out for "misrepresenting" the LDS faith, but you do it with impunity.

I did read the links which is how I found the quote I used several posts back now which showed some bishops in the east did NOT accept Roman primacy and that although the bishop of Rome maintained that all the bishops agreed with the excommunication, it is shown that this is a lie because those excommunicated from the Roman church did not in fact agree, and probably weren't even contacted before being excommunicated. I am now finding debating with you to be somewhat disconcerting because it seems that since I believe history does not support Roman primacy, you are alleging that I am misrepresenting your faith. I have merely set forth the facts on what the vast majority of history and scripture reveals to me. If you want to believe a few letters over the vast weight of history and scripture, that is your choice. It seems Catholics do that quite a bit. Coupled with the fact that Rome has admittedly accepted at least one forgery on this very issue, should raise flags with the reader. The fact is those letters do not reflect the reality of how Rome was really viewed by the vast majority of the rest of the church - hence, Canon VI of the Nicene Council reflects that Rome did not hold jurisdiction over vast areas of the east by custom. As troubling as this truth is to you, the power of Rome evolved. Rome started as an equal to other bishops - scripturally and historically, and scripturally never held apostolic keys. Christ's kingdom is not of this world and is not left to men exactly because of the abuses men adopt as exemplified by those of Rome through the sale of indulgences and persecution of those Christians which preached against such abuses. This does not change the fact that I believe there are many humble followers of Christ in the Catholic church, but I believe heaven is calling them out to the complete truth so I present it for the reader so that they have the whole picture and not just the RCC version since it seems they don't present those facts which militate against their version of history on this issue.
Cheers

 

[Defensor Christi]

I did read the links which is how I found the quote I used several posts back now which showed some bishops in the east did NOT accept Roman primacy and that although the bishop of Rome maintained that all the bishops agreed with the excommunication, it is shown that this is a lie because those excommunicated from the Roman church did not in fact agree, and probably weren't even contacted before being excommunicated. I am now finding debating with you to be somewhat disconcerting because it seems that since I believe history does not support Roman primacy, you are alleging that I am misrepresenting your faith. I have merely set forth the facts on what the vast majority of history and scripture reveals to me. If you want to believe a few letters over the vast weight of history and scripture, that is your choice. It seems Catholics do that quite a bit. Coupled with the fact that Rome has admittedly accepted at least one forgery on this very issue, should raise flags with the reader. The fact is those letters do not reflect the reality of how Rome was really viewed by the vast majority of the rest of the church - hence, Canon VI of the Nicene Council reflects that Rome did not hold jurisdiction over vast areas of the east by custom. As troubling as this truth is to you, the power of Rome evolved. Rome started as an equal to other bishops - scripturally and historically, and scripturally never held apostolic keys. Christ's kingdom is not of this world and is not left to men exactly because of the abuses men adopt as exemplified by those of Rome through the sale of indulgences and persecution of those Christians which preached against such abuses. This does not change the fact that I believe there are many humble followers of Christ in the Catholic church, but I believe heaven is calling them out to the complete truth so I present it for the reader so that they have the whole picture and not just the RCC version since it seems they don't present those facts which militate against their version of history on this issue.
Cheers

LOL...this is rich. Again, unless you link specifics for your opinions I suggest you leave it alone. Couple that with that fact that you are LDS and are accusing the Catholic Church of forging documents and making up history is simply LUDICRIOUS!!! Really?? Wow, okay...I respect that you believe what you posted to be true, but you CANNOT back it up...period.

AND you say you present the entire version not just the RCC version AND still cling to mormonism is beyond ironic to me....Cheers indeed...

P.S this was NEVER a debate, I refuse to debate your personal opinion you have yet to post one scrap of verifiable data...all you managed to do was link the Canon from the Council and sprinkle in your opinion...that isnt how "debate" works....

 

[RevelationTestament]

LOL...this is rich. Again, unless you link specifics for your opinions I suggest you leave it alone. Couple that with that fact that you are LDS and are accusing the Catholic Church of forging documents and making up history is simply LUDICRIOUS!!! Really?? Wow, okay...I respect that you believe what you posted to be true, but you CANNOT back it up...period.

Are you really asserting that I did not back up my comment about forged documents? LOL. You and I both referred to your own Catholic Encyclopedia, and I referred the reader there for the Catholic Church's admission of the Donation of Constantine forgery. Here is a 2nd example: in the eleventh century the false decretals of Isidore became part of the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. It is admitted on pp. 773-80 that these forged decretals of some 33 popes were used in canon law.
Then there is an example of a letter the bishop of Rome wrote in the name of Peter. I wonder if some RC had the nerve to write in the name of Ignacius, and then happen to "find" the letter in the Catholic repositories? Do I really have to imagine that hard?

AND you say you present the entire version not just the RCC version AND still cling to mormonism is beyond ironic to me....Cheers indeed...

No, I didn't present the "entire version" - that would take a book lol. I did provide some basics.

P.S this was NEVER a debate, I refuse to debate your personal opinion you have yet to post one scrap of verifiable data...all you managed to do was link the Canon from the Council and sprinkle in your opinion...that isnt how "debate" works....

I don't really need much more than Canon VI. It is basically irrefutable evidence of how things really worked at the time since it was obviously the reflected opinions of hundreds of bishops rather than one or two in obscure letters subject to forgery. I'll accept the majority opinion on how things really worked every time. The opinion of the bishop of Rome and his subjects on whether he had primacy, when the vast majority of bishops say he didn't, is just not very convincing for some reason.......

 

[Defensor Christi]

Are you really asserting that I did not back up my comment about forged documents? LOL. You and I both referred to your own Catholic Encyclopedia, and I referred the reader there for the Catholic Church's admission of the Donation of Constantine forgery. Here is a 2nd example: in the eleventh century the false decretals of Isidore became part of the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. It is admitted on pp. 773-80 that these forged decretals of some 33 popes were used in canon law.
Then there is an example of a letter the bishop of Rome wrote in the name of Peter. I wonder if some RC had the nerve to write in the name of Ignacius, and then happen to "find" the letter in the Catholic repositories? Do I really have to imagine that hard?

No, I didn't present the "entire version" - that would take a book lol. I did provide some basics.

I don't really need much more than Canon VI. It is basically irrefutable evidence of how things really worked at the time since it was obviously the reflected opinions of hundreds of bishops rather than one or two in obscure letters subject to forgery. I'll accept the majority opinion on how things really worked every time. The opinion of the bishop of Rome and his subjects on whether he had primacy, when the vast majority of bishops say he didn't, is just not very convincing for some reason.......

Apparently, you dont care to read anything that I write...that's fine, I have stated all that I can with you, I refuse to continue to beat my head upon the proverbial wall that is RT....

 

[RevelationTestament]

Apparently, you dont care to read anything that I write...that's fine, I have stated all that I can with you, I refuse to continue to beat my head upon the proverbial wall that is RT....

You are not hearing me. I did read it, and remain unconvinced. Just because you allege something is true, doesn't make it so. I have listed most of my many reasons. Just because the papacy possesses a few obscure letters alleging the importance of the bishop of Rome, doesn't mean he was viewed as having primacy by the rest of the bishops. His local "primacy" did not convert to early "universal" primacy. The vast majority of the church in the east just never recognized these claims, and they had far more "apostolic sees."
There is much historical evidence of this fact, not to mention scriptural precedent which seems to be largely ignored by the RCC. The only scripture the RCC relies on does not give the bishop of Rome apostolic keys as I have pointed out. Christ made Peter the stone because Peter taught scriptural principles and was part of the rock of the kingdom - it had little to do with being the leader of some earthly church for His kingdom is not of this world. Peter founded many churches. Dying in Rome did not pass any apostolic keys to a bishop. Scripture is clear that dead apostles were replaced with new apostles chosen by the twelve. There just is no scriptural precedent for apostolic keys passing to bishops. Peter was married and was never a Pope. The very term "pope" was an eastern concept passed into the church along with the mitre hat. So with due respect we just plainly disagree based on scripture and history.

 

[James Is Back]

If the Mormons are afraid of others why do they go door knocking?

 

[Defensor Christi]

You are not hearing me. I did read it, and remain unconvinced. Just because you allege something is true, doesn't make it so. I have listed most of my many reasons. Just because the papacy possesses a few obscure letters alleging the importance of the bishop of Rome, doesn't mean he was viewed as having primacy by the rest of the bishops. His local "primacy" did not convert to early "universal" primacy. The vast majority of the church in the east just never recognized these claims, and they had far more "apostolic sees."
There is much historical evidence of this fact, not to mention scriptural precedent which seems to be largely ignored by the RCC. The only scripture the RCC relies on does not give the bishop of Rome apostolic keys as I have pointed out. Christ made Peter the stone because Peter taught scriptural principles and was part of the rock of the kingdom - it had little to do with being the leader of some earthly church for His kingdom is not of this world. Peter founded many churches. Dying in Rome did not pass any apostolic keys to a bishop. Scripture is clear that dead apostles were replaced with new apostles chosen by the twelve. There just is no scriptural precedent for apostolic keys passing to bishops. Peter was married and was never a Pope. The very term "pope" was an eastern concept passed into the church along with the mitre hat. So with due respect we just plainly disagree based on scripture and history.

Alright, let's try this once again...orignally you wrote:

Yes, they should. Then they would learn that there were hundreds of bishops in the church by the time of Nicea, and that none of them considered the bishop of Rome to have primacy over them. They met in councils as equals. The bishop of Rome was invited to the council on the same basis and in the same manner as the other bishops. He wasn't the officiator nor the ultimate decider. There was no inkling that his decision on this issue was the "infallible" doctrine of the church. They would also learn bishops had previously decided in a council to excommunicate a bishop for using the very term, homoousios, adopted by Athanasius and the Nicean council.

They might further learn there was no precedent for bishops ruling on matters of new doctrine for the church. They acted as judges as to correct and incorrect conduct. Perhaps this why a majority of the bishops did not show up for the Nicean council. But being that they were the most authoritative branch of the priesthood left, at least in the eyes of the people, it seems the lot fell on them to try to resolve a controversy between Athansius and Arius. There is no evidence any of them were considered Apostles or even Seventy nor that Christ even intended for this issue to be decided by men for the church.

To which I replied....

Dear pot meet kettle...dear kettle meet pot....so laughable!

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

The Authority of the Pope: Part I | Catholic Answers

Continue to write and re-write LDS history as you see fit, but dont try to impose your "belief" of history upon the truth of it...thanks!

Proving that your statement of "none" was incorrect and mischaracterized...you then began to post about the Council of Nicae Canon VI, which I posted this link:

The Sixth Nicene Canon Explained, Council of Nicaea, Canon 6, and the Papacy

Showing you where your personal interpretation of said canon was incorrect...case closed.

To be clear, I have no desire nor intention to change your mind about the Council nor do I care to try to change your mind about the primacy of St. Peter, Apostolic Succession nor about the authority of the Pope...zero, zip, none, nada...I dont see the poiint in expending the energy, I do that in General Theology...

I come to UT to ask questions and read the apologetics presented by the members of the LDS Church, so that I can better understand what/why you believe what you do...

If you want to remain in your opinion, I have no issue with that...just please dont misrepresent FACTS (as you did in the above post). Savvy?

 

[Anto9us]

If the Mormons are afraid of others why do they go door knocking?

Well, to read some of the posts about WHAT IT IS LIKE for Mormon Missionaries -- they may just flat be MORE SCARED OF SUPERIORS

than anyone who might open the door

(I feel sorry for these young people)

 

[James Is Back]

(I feel sorry for these young people)

I do too

 

[Moodshadow]

Many returned missionaries come home with glowing reports of how inspired and inspiring their missions were. These are the ones who are/were the most influenced by the teachings they received growing up and in the MTC (Missionary Training Center, where, as has been previously mentioned, they were sequestered from the world and even their families while they were taught Mormonism 24/7). Others, like my daughter, come home clearly disillusioned at having discovered rather rudely that (a) the world is not necessarily "white for the harvest," as they had been taught, as evidence by the fact that some people slam doors in their faces and in fact curse them as they walk away, and (b) church authorities are not always 100% honest in their own dealings. This is a huge reality-check for these impressionable young people, and it hurts them to the center of their beings. I was talking in a social situation once to a therapist once who told me that fully 25% of his practice (in Plano, Texas) consists of disenchanted Mormons - active, inactive, and former. This was so NOT shocking to me.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Well, to read some of the posts about WHAT IT IS LIKE for Mormon Missionaries -- they may just flat be MORE SCARED OF SUPERIORS

than anyone who might open the door

(I feel sorry for these young people)

I feel sad for you that you feel a need to so misrepresent missionaries this way. Missionaries scared of their superiors? Being a missionary is voluntary. There are young men in my own ward who did not go on missions. I have been in the Church on and off for the past 40 years, and I have never even heard of such an allegation before... which puts you in the totally out there category. Some missionaries are disappointed that they don't have more success in terms of converts. Basically the only discipline that may occur for a missionary is getting sent home. Maybe some missionaries are scared of that. But scared of their superiors...that is just out there.

 

[Anto9us]

25% of a therapists' practice is disenchanted ex-Mormons?

I don't think I am that "out there" -- I was just REACTING to what others have passed on in these threads from their own experiences about these missionaries

I do not think it unlikely that psychological pressures from their superiors do indeed affect some of the young people

but I mean - I don't know and DON'T WANT TO KNOW firsthand about the missionaries - you can say that all these missionaries are happy as a lark

just go on and think that

you don't care if they require therapy because of their experiences?

That's pretty cold, man.

 

[bbbbbbb]

25% of a psychological practice in Plano, Texas, mind you, where Mormons are clearly a minority of the population. That is really a shocking number. My heart really does go out to these people. It was hard enough for me to leave a mainline church when i became a Christian, so it must be really agonizing for Mormons.

 

[Moodshadow]

Maybe I should clarify that the patients this psychologist was talking about were not necessarily all former missionaries. He didn't go into any detail with me, of course, and no one would expect him to. But I can say with no reservation whatsoever that some former missionaries would have been in that number, because of the emphasis put on serving missions from church hierarchy and the pressure that it creates. That is exactly why they recently lowered the age for missionaries to 18; it used to be 21 for women and 19 for men. Yes, as has been mentioned, going on a mission is voluntary, but believe me, no young adult wants to feel like he/she is disappointing or disgracing the family by not "volunteering" to go.

 

[RevelationTestament]

25% of a psychological practice in Plano, Texas, mind you, where Mormons are clearly a minority of the population. That is really a shocking number. My heart really does go out to these people. It was hard enough for me to leave a mainline church when i became a Christian, so it must be really agonizing for Mormons.

I joined the LDS church when I was 12, and went inactive when I went to college for 4 years. I don't recall being agonized or needing any therapy. That is some kind of fluke. In fact I have never met any inactive that needed therapy. My guess is being in Plano that these are FLDS polygamists outside the fold. I am sure they do need therapy after being raised in such a totalitarian and reclusive regime.

 

[Moodshadow]

I joined the LDS church when I was 12, and went inactive when I went to college for 4 years. I don't recall being agonized or needing any therapy. That is some kind of fluke. In fact I have never met any inactive that needed therapy. My guess is being in Plano that these are FLDS polygamists outside the fold. I am sure they do need therapy after being raised in such a totalitarian and reclusive regime.

You have obviously never been to Plano, my friend. There are no FLDS there at all that I know of, but there are many thriving LDS wards, and the Dallas temple is minutes away. And c'mon - how many LDS people - active or inactive - do you know who would advertise the fact that they had sought psychological counseling because of issues with the church?

 

[drstevej]

FLDS is Plano, Texas. Nah. I lived in Dallas 20 years and toured the Temple when dedicated. Plano an expression of Big D not Big Love. Were most of the patients women. I could see that being the case.

LDS women deal with depression – U N I V E R S E

A 2007 report by Mental Health America placed Utah at the bottom of the “depression status” rankings. According to the report, Utah had the seventh-highest suicide rate of any state, and more than 10 percent of respondents had experienced a major depressive episode in the previous year.

“It’s so unique in our culture,” Doty said of these forces that feed depression and hinder its treatment. “You won’t find this is an issue in Ohio or in Florida or in New York. It’s just not as big of a deal, but here it’s huge.”

With a nearby Temple that has been in place since 1984 and was the first LDS Temple in Texas.

and another quote from the same source

“In the LDS Church it’s like, ‘I feel depressed,’ and it’s like, ‘Oh you must not be righteous, maybe you should go serve somebody and then you would be,'” Lindsay (name changed) said. She told Doty how feeling judged by others contributed to her depression. Lindsay, age 32, also said, “It’s just something we do to ourselves, that’s not coming down from the prophet, it’s not coming down from God. That’s just us comparing ourselves to each other and having that perfect standard.”

The works treadmill takes it's toll.

 

[RevelationTestament]

FLDS is Plano, Texas. Nah. I lived in Dallas 20 years and toured the Temple when dedicated. Plano an expression of Big D not Big Love. Were most of the patients women. I could see that being the case.

LDS women deal with depression – U N I V E R S E

With a nearby Temple that has been in place since 1984 and was the first LDS Temple in Texas.

and another quote from the same source

The works treadmill takes it's toll.

Actually depression and suicide are markedly higher in all the Rocky Mtn states whether LDS or not. LDS on the other hand are generally found to be happier than most others so your sweeping generalizations are totally unscientific.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually depression and suicide are markedly higher in all the Rocky Mtn states whether LDS or not. LDS on the other hand are generally found to be happier than most others so your sweeping generalizations are totally unscientific.

I debunked your allegation some time ago and am surprised that you seem to think I have forgotten. Apparently, your memory is not so good.

To jog your memory here is the map of the United States showing relative rates of clinical depression. Please note that Colorado, which is a Rocky Mountain state, has a lower than average rate of depression.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I debunked your allegation some time ago and am surprised that you seem to think I have forgotten. Apparently, your memory is not so good.

To jog your memory here is the map of the United States showing relative rates of clinical depression. Please note that Colorado, which is a Rocky Mountain state, has a lower than average rate of depression.

It's not really my allegation. I just don't like people making such generalized allegations based on a fluke. Actually your map shows Utah to have lower rates of depression than many other states. If there are those seeking therapy after leaving the church, maybe it is because they have not found God like they thought they would.

As a counter to your map, I again show a nationwide map of suicide rates in the U.S. They are generally highest in the Rocky Mountain states - regardless of religious affiliation: