Richard Sherlock Converts to Catholicism

[_Chap]

Problem (2) bears much, much harder on a religion like Mormonism than it does on mainstream Christianity, partly because the historical events on which the special features of Mormonism depend are much more recent than those on which Christianity in general depends (the life, death and claimed resurrection of Jesus), and therefore much more amenable to evidential critique, and partly also because the Book of Mormon makes large claims about the history of the Americas that bear little resemblance to reality from a historical point of view.

Except that catholicism claims truth too. Mormonism and catholicism are two peas in a pod in that regard. Thus, both should be held up to the same standard. However, on this board, catholicism is given some respect. We have MCB constantly downing Mormonism but overlooking catholic skeletons. It is a standard CAF approach.

Been over at MAD lately? Let's talk about their "even handed" way of moderating.

Wanna talk about the standard MAD approach?

You got away with a lot over at CAF that would never have been tolerated at MAD.

I wish people would stop quoting whyme's chatbot prose.

There are no signs in his post that he has understood what I wrote. My point is not that it is illegitimate to doubt those of the truth claims of Cathollcism that rest on assertions about historical events, whereas that should be done to Mormonism. My point, stated quite clearly, I think, is that it is simply much easier to attack the history-based claims of Mormonism effectively, for the reasons given above.

Could I have put it any clearer than I did?

[_hans castorp]

You don't read what other people write, do you? If you had any grasp of my posting history you'd know that I haven't spent the bulk of my time here being "critical of Mormonism." In fact, I'm not sure you even know what "Mormonism" is. Get this. It doesn't matter that I don't believe in God. It doesn't even matter whether I'm counted as a member on the roll books. I'm still a Mormon. And I'll venture that I'm more sincerely Mormon even now than you've ever been.

O’er my sins thou sit and moan:
Hast thou no sins of thy own?
O’er my sins thou sit and weep,
And lull thy own sins fast asleep.

Who the hell are you to tell me to leave my past and my history alone and "move on." Do you even know what it means to be a human being? Do you have any concept of the relation between history and memory? Have you ever read a book? You write as if you are completely ignorant of human imagination, creativity and struggle. You write as if it is unheard of for people to spend their whole lives working through complex questions of faith and doubt. You write as if you can't understand that people can love and hate something at the same time. You write as if you can't comprehend that critique is a dialectical process. You write as if you've never found delight in the study of history and culture. You write as if you do not know the thickets of the heart.

Sometimes a troll can be the proverbial grain of sand in the oyster . . .

hc

[_hans castorp]

(I also believe, though this is a bit off the point, that the people who really do believe in a God are very few compared to the mass of believers, who attend their churches and get much emotional sustenance and support from these institutions, but who never really suffer through doubt and faith and truly seek spiritual knowledge. I think what I am calling Real Seekers/Believers is a comparatively small group, but I do think I have met some of these people and met them right here on this board! Their experiences are extremely interesting to me, more and more interesting the more I have involved myself with Mormon Studies, because for the first time I am taking religion seriously as an object of study. But this is really off topic...)

Off topic or not, this is an issue more worthy of discussion than whyme's rants.

One of the privileges I've had in my career is the opportunity to hear from some of "the mass of believers," people with what might seem like unremarkable lives who bear burdens that would crush me and who have inner lives of remarkable depth and richness. I once heard a Kansas City truck driver, asked to compare his spiritual life to a body of water, construct an elaborate picture of the Jordan River between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea to describe the alternation of dryness and consolation in his prayer.

But that said, I can only agree that most public discussion of religion, especially on message boards and email lists, and in blog comments, displays a level of superficiality and incomprehension that's quite disheartening. It's not so much that people talk at cross-purposes, though they do, but that they seem incapable of understanding the experiences that underlie so much of the talk, even their own.

hc

[_huckelberry]

It is obvious that he is clueless of christian history. The religious wars in europe when catholics and protestants were killing each other could be a sign of a great apostacy. And the political intrigue in europe involving religion...could be a sign of apostacy. We just need to look how Lithuania became catholic and in fact, we can see just how latin america became catholic. Not exactly by choice. But our friend overlooks such details that maybe god was a little pissed at the religions which claimed to be followers of his son, Jesus Christ.

So, the bigger question is: knowing christian history, can an apostacy be claimed and can it be claimed that a restoration was necessary?

Not being committed to the perpetual condemnation of exMormons I see no reason to think Sherlock is unaware of Catholic history.

I can easily see that Catholic history could indicate an apostasy. That would be one of a variety of possible understandings. Now considering Whyme's bigger question, can an apostasy be claimed. Of course it can. It has been claimed by many many people over hundreds of years. However for a Mormon there is a bigger question. Is the Mormon church true or a tangled trap of confusion?

[_Blixa]

(I also believe, though this is a bit off the point, that the people who really do believe in a God are very few compared to the mass of believers, who attend their churches and get much emotional sustenance and support from these institutions, but who never really suffer through doubt and faith and truly seek spiritual knowledge. I think what I am calling Real Seekers/Believers is a comparatively small group, but I do think I have met some of these people and met them right here on this board! Their experiences are extremely interesting to me, more and more interesting the more I have involved myself with Mormon Studies, because for the first time I am taking religion seriously as an object of study. But this is really off topic...)

Off topic or not, this is an issue more worthy of discussion than whyme's rants.

One of the privileges I've had in my career is the opportunity to hear from some of "the mass of believers," people with what might seem like unremarkable lives who bear burdens that would crush me and who have inner lives of remarkable depth and richness. I once heard a Kansas City truck driver, asked to compare his spiritual life to a body of water, construct an elaborate picture of the Jordan River between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea to describe the alternation of dryness and consolation in his prayer.

But that said, I can only agree that most public discussion of religion, especially on message boards and email lists, and in blog comments, displays a level of superficiality and incomprehension that's quite disheartening. It's not so much that people talk at cross-purposes, though they do, but that they seem incapable of understanding the experiences that underlie so much of the talk, even their own.

hc

Ah, point taken and thank you for the correction. I'm trying to take my searching in more profitable directions than message board exchange, though, truth be told it is here that my questions and seeking have started. For me, lack of belief has always been the default setting, seemingly at a very deep level. An interest in religion and religious experience has therefore come at a late age and I often feel like I don't even have the vocabulary with which to begin the discussion.

[_hobo1512]

I wish people would stop quoting whyme's chatbot prose.

There are no signs in his post that he has understood what I wrote. My point is not that it is illegitimate to doubt those of the truth claims of Cathollcism that rest on assertions about historical events, whereas that should be done to Mormonism. My point, stated quite clearly, I think, is that it is simply much easier to attack the history-based claims of Mormonism effectively, for the reasons given above.

Could I have put it any clearer than I did?

HUH?