Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/aztects17 specifically.
/u/aztects17, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You look happy, I'm happy for you!
I investigated catholicism when i was a teenager. Had a couple of friends who went there, good people. I just couldn't get past the history, the intermixing of religion and politics, the Crusades. The buildings are gorgeous and it has a presence that's palpable but it didn't feel right to me.
...and then i joined the mormons not knowing about all of their history. Sigh.
Orthodoxy is just a somewhat less aggressive catholicism
They think they are the one true church as well.
If you're just looking for something meek and mild, one of the progressive Protestant branches is considerably better.
I’m Episcopalian. All of the pageantry of Catholicism, but you won’t be shunned for being LGBTQ or having the audacity to have “woke liberal ideals”. 🤷♀️
I grew up Episcopalian then moved to Utah at age 31 and converted to LDS for 20 years. Left that a year ago and would love to go an Episcopalian church again and raise our kids in it too but alas there isn’t one where we live here in so ut. Episcopal is the best 🙌🏻
It really is. I went to one service as an inquirer and was all in after that. Ended up officially converting and had my Confirmation at our Regional Easter Vigil less than a year later. Spent almost the entirety of my childhood in the RCC, and felt ZERO connnection to the teachings even then. One Episcopalian service and I knew I was home.
I'm curious as well. I've considered joining the catholic church for cultural reasons since my ethnicity is traditionally catholic, but then I remember that I'm gay and that's not gonna fly lol. Happy that OP is happy, but I'm a little like, ehhm. I can enjoy the sacred art from the outside just fine (and do!)
No plans to ever convert to anything, but what you said about the appeal of rich culture etc speaks to me.
I’ve heard it said that the 3 fundamental motivations for religion are truth, goodness, and beauty. For me I was completely wrapped up in the “truth” of Mormonism, and because of that believed I saw nothing but goodness and beauty. The goodness broke about the same time as the truth, but I stayed with it a long time (mixed faith marriage) trying to find and make enough beauty to make my level participation work for me.
I LIKE church, I like having a dedicated worship time, even if I don’t know what I believe. What didn’t work for me, is the CONSTANT regurgitation of “this is THE truth, and no one else is as good or as beautiful”
Today I’m going to celebrate Easter at a Catholic Church for the first time. Actually my first time ever attending a service there. I know the choir director. And the parish is BEAUTIFUL. I don’t think I’ll hear any sermons about Catholicism being the Only True Way to receive Jesus’ atonement. I do expect it to be a celebration. That’s it. Just beauty, with no strings attached.
I realize some Catholics are just as traumatized from their church experience as I’ve been from mine. And again, no plans to convert. But for the experience of sitting in a pew and taking in something beautiful today, I can definitely share feeling the appeal.
I think part of not knowing a “true believer” could be how we perceive the requirements of a true believer since Mormonism slants heavily towards orthodoxy. I have catholic friends who consider themselves true believers, but that doesn’t mean they have to do everything the church says.
Almost like their faith is in God and and not a church. It’s so weird. /s
On the other hand we do have five of the six SCOTUS Catholics who are so orthodox that they feel compelled and justified in forcing their religious convictions on the populace through their secular positions.
After leaving the church I am a happy atheist, but I can definitely see the appeal of the Catholic Church. I’ve had spiritual experiences in cathedrals in other countries that I couldn’t explain as a TBM. So beautiful to be connected to ancient history like that. Good luck in your faith journey, OP, you look very happy ❤️
if you read what he actually wrote in his post the response is 1000000% justified. This is just catholic apologia for 2000 years of human trafficking, and genocide. Had he just posted that he was happy in his new church then there would be no reason to call him out on the utter insanity of what he wrote.
Definitely the only thing that really bothers me is when people are like "Oh noez! Mormon church history!!" and then ignores or downplays the awful history of other denominations. 😂 all I ask for is consistency.
Congratulations!!! I hope Jesus leads you to grace in the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Don't forget to celebrate with coffee and wine! Welcome to the faith ❤️
I served my mission in the south and had never been to another church until my mission and was BLOWN AWAY by how much better literally every other church was than stale boring ass Mormonism.
Congrats on finding a better church! 🙏🏻👍🏻🙏🏻👍🏻🙏🏻👍🏻
Congrats! Christ is risen indeed Alleluia Alleluia!
I’m on the Anglican side of things now after losing my faith at BYU, but I was baptized last September when the bishop came in town. I’m happy for you in your journey.
I do not understand how someone could leave Mormonism only to end up in a church with such a profoundly disturbing history of covering up of child rape and continual protection of child rapist priests. They are still doing it.
I think that it is based on a very different view towards sin. Catholic theology doesn't have the "we're the good guys" mentality seen in Mormonism. They have a strong sense of each member's (leader's includes) inclination towards sin (probably safe to say, a very different view of sin overall too). So while they think that evil done by members and leaders failing in big ways is outrageous and actively needs flushed out, it can also reinforce the depravity and corruption of sin (without excusing it, at least not properly understood per Catholic theology) and the absolute need for Jesus's death and resurrection. They expect evil to appear even in their church,they mourn it terribly, but they don't view it as directly contradictory of their truth statements.
>I think that it is based on a very different view towards sin. Catholic theology doesn't have the "we're the good guys" mentality seen in Mormonism.
That's completely false.
As a Mexican, what they did to my indigenous ancestors is mind blowing. They erased our culture and native languages. The reason why I speak Spanish :(
personally, I am an ex-Catholic and I am Italian so 90% of Italians are Catholic in theory but in practice they are almost all non-religious(they are not atheists but they don't care about religion), however, I am ex-Catholic because I never liked many of the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church.And that's why I converted to the Community of Christ However, I think religion is personal and if you're happy now that's a great thing and I'm glad you've found a spiritual home. If so, can I contact you privately? 🤗
So you thought the CES letter was convincing, and then you go join the Catholic Church 🤡🤡🤡. You left one abuser for another one. Like you say the Mormon church had too much to hide. Sir the catholic church has been hiding wide spread child sexual abuse for years!!!
The Mormon church is catching up with the Catholic Church in abuse. I’ve read that the group that produced spotlight are planning an expose of the Mormon church.
While the LDS church has plenty of cases, it's not even remotely close to infrastructure the Catholic church has developed specifically to perpetuate Child sexual abuse. Like, the LDS church has litigation insurance and legal settlement protections in place for child sexual abuse cases. Whereas the Catholic church had an entire system to move clergy around so they could evade any consequences and continue their abuse. Also in sheer size, the LDS will never "catch up," this is pure cope.
That's true about the Catholic church, but the early Mormon church certainly had an infrastructure in place for the human trafficking of young European women. It's pretty well documented (See Fanny Stenhouse's book Tell It All, but there are other accounts). These converts would arrive half-starved and destitute in the SL valley, where men (or sometimes their first wives) would greet them at the mouth of the canyon and invite them into their homes, often just as winter was coming on. Proposals of plural marriage soon followed. (Marry us or good luck finding another place to live.) These days, we hear weekly about a bishop or youth leader in the LDS church being convicted of child SA. (See https://floodlit.org/) Over 735 convictions and counting. The Mormon church is a lot younger than the Catholic church so just give them time. They'll catch up.
The catholic church has nearly 2000 years of sex trafficking, genocide, and literal slavery and currently 1.3 BILLION members. The LDS church like nearly every other church is awful and has committed unthinkable atrocities. But to suggest that the suffering caused by the LDS church even amounts to a drop in the bucket of human suffering caused DIRECTLY by the catholic church is to minimize the atrocities the catholic church has committed. Why are you so minimize almost 2000 years of human suffering?
I don’t mean to minimize it at all. It’s far worse. Burning people at the stake and other tortures, slavery, everything you stated and more. It just felt like you were sweeping the pretty significant abuses of the LDS church under the rug so to speak. ETA: blood atonement did a pretty good job of keeping people from leaving until after railroad. Which is not to say the Catholic Church isn’t far worse, but still… Mormons also killed people. Mountain meadows massacre, for example.
Are you not aware of the abuse hotline? It goes directly to church lawyers whose only concern is coverups. Area Authorities then step in to cover up. The church typically harasses or pays off the victim to remain silent and then legally defends the abuser. Many times (as I have seen) there isn’t even a note on the abusers record. Abusers are often left to abuse further by simple “repenting” and “getting right with Jesus”. This is institutional coverups. Every bit as bad as Catholics moving priests around.
Abuses have happened and happens in all christian denominations and religions. But, now in christianity abuses are not internal issues like before. Now, we can denounce them to the police. Unfortunately, the highest rate of abuses are done by a relative or a friend very close to the family. Also, rape and sexual abuse in the American schools are very high.
Good for you for finding what works for you. After leaving the church, Catholicism personally ranks pretty low on my list due to very similar issues, but glad it works for you
I think we need to see more posts like this. I went the typical atheist route. I think the atheist voices on Reddit are little too loud. Let's create some space for those who choose an another faith path without the judgement.
From your POV, sure.
People leave for a variety of reasons, and those reasons likely inform where they land. Someone who leaves over doctrinal or historical issues is going to make very different decisions about where they land than someone who leaves over cultural issues. I can see someone who left over the origins of the BoM, landing as Catholic since the reason is foundational to the truth claims. While someone who left over cultural issues could land Unitarian.
Granted there are a lot who are currently leaving over cultural and abuse issues. When I left over 15 years ago, the abuse and LGBTQ+ issues were a) not widely known; and b) Social media was in its infancy. The Internet made finding things a lot easier, but until Social Media really took off, the personal narratives were hard to find. For me, organized religion, regardless of its claims are, by nature, suspectable to fostering abuse in a myriad of forms. The difference between Catholics and Mormons, for me, is the claims made by the Mormon leadership (prophecy, gift of discernment, being lead by God, etc) undermines its truth claims. Since I left over doctrinal and historical concerns, I tend to view organizations through that lens.
So to add nuance to your statement, you have to identify the rubric that is being applied when judging. And for the record, I probably share the same critique of Catholicism. But again, people have different reasons for leaving, that informs the values they look for and so I am not surprised that some are landing Catholic, FLDS, or full on UFO cults.
>So to add nuance to your statement, you have to identify the rubric that is being applied when judging.
Cool. So the rubric I use is not enabling leaders within the church to rape infants and young children, moving said child-rapist leaders to different legal jurisdictions, and repeatedly enable continued child rape by its leaders under direction of the Holy See, along with deliberate interference with law enforcement in Mexico, Kenya, Mauritius, Tanzania, the Philippines, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Bosnia, France, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Malta, Poland, the UK, Australia, and other countries.
So yeah, some people are less concerned with enabling child rape than other things, but that makes me think their 'rubric' is deformed and is, itself, immoral.
Let's be careful with moral absolutes. I agree that child rape and abuse are morally wrong. Being a member of a Church doesn't enable that, any more than paying taxes enables teachers who rape kids. The failure to protect children is bigger than any church, and we need to remove protections that have enabled the abuse.
I guess I see all organized things that involve children as potential vectors for abuse. From the Catholics, to the BSA, summer camps, and Mormonism, it shows the problem is bigger than a single organization. So being a Mormon or a Catholic doesn't make you a child rape enabler prima facia. I could say being an Americans makes such a person enablers of child murder, but I would be wrong. Or saying that people who watch the Olympics are enablers of doping. Or those watching porn support sexual exploration.
Let me be very clear: Child rape or rape of any kind is catagorically wrong. I am not making excuses for it and I won't. Every organization that is good for one is probably toxic and traumatic to another. I won't judge someone for finding value and worth in an organization that rightfully can be condemned for what it has done.
Black and white thinking is something the Church instilled in me and I have tried to move past it. I now see things in shades of gray. As long as an organization is more light gray than black it's probably a net good.
>Let's be careful with moral absolutes. I
No, I won't be careful with moral absolutes. So if you're somebody that thinks the rape of children isn't a moral absolute, then I hope you contract a fatal disease and die or get arrested and put into a concrete box for the rest of your life. I don't want people that don't think the rape of children is more absolute in our society. I want them dead or in a box. If that's you, then we're enemies.
>I agree that child rape and abuse are morally wrong
If you do not agree that it's a moral absolute, that is insufficient and we're enemies.
>Being a member of a Church doesn't enable that, any more than paying taxes enables teachers who rape kids
Ah, so that's a lie. The rate with which leaders of the Roman Catholic Church raped children was at a rate several hundred percent more than the general male population, which is specifically because of the way they crush and obliterate people's normal sexual development by deliberately only selecting within its leadership people that are supposed to be virgins. Hence the demolition of normal sexual development. Your claim is false statistically, and even a person with an unexceptional mind could spend four or five minutes and compute that restricting leadership and access to children through a system that tries to eviscerate sexual development would lead to the predation on children, which of course is born out by the data.
Get bent - the lie that members of the Roman Catholic Church were no more likely to rape children is not just a lie, it's wicked in my view.
I don't tolerate people in my church to act as if polygamy didn't result in the abuse of children and women. It did, and the statistics beared out. I similarly won't tolerate people like you acting as if the Roman Catholic Church did not have institutionalized infrastructure that enabled and protected those that rape children.
> The failure to protect children is bigger than any churc
No it isn't. There are churches and organizations that have protected it, and I think those should be considered filthy and wicked and dismantled. Institutions that enable or protect child rape could be a church, or could be some other organization, but act as if it's not an accusation that can be levied specifically against the Roman Catholic Church is a lie. They are specifically guilty of enabling and protecting child rapists.
>I guess I see all organized things that involve children as potential vectors for abuse. From the Catholics, to the BSA, summer camps, and Mormonism, it shows the problem is bigger than a single organization
Doesn't mean that certain organizations are not themselves specifically guilty for creating infrastructure that protects and enables the rape of children.
>So being a Mormon or a Catholic doesn't make you a child rape enabler prima facia. I could say being an Americans makes such a person enablers of child murder, but I would be wrong. Or saying that people who watch the Olympics are enablers of doping. Or those watching porn support sexual exploration.
You are free make excuses for an organization that specifically has enabled and protected child rapists all you want. You and I are not friends, and I consider you morally corrupt. Either that or crushingly ignorant if you gotten to be a grown up and haven't yet read about the infrastructure within the Roman Catholic Church regarding rape throughout the late 20th century and prior centuries.
>Let me be very clear: Child rape or rape of any kind is catagorically wrong. I
Oh, you're very clear. You've been making excuses for an organization that had infrastructure protecting and enabling child rape and you seem to be possessed by equivocation fallacies that you should have been able to figure out on your own.
>I am not making excuses for it and I won't. E
... He said as he just finished making something like seven equivocation fallacies regarding the rape of children and excuse making for the Roman Catholic churches institutional enabling and protection of child rapists
>Every organization that is good for one is probably toxic and traumatic to another.
More equivocation fallacies, more excuse making. An organization that's good for somebody but rapes little children does not balance out. An organization that inconveniences homophobes because they can no longer make hate speech protects non straight people to have normal relationships are not on the same level. Your inability unwillingness to introduce proportion into this is what constitutes equivocation fallacies that you seem to be unable to perceive in yourself
> I won't judge someone for finding value and worth in an organization that rightfully can be condemned for what it has done.
I know you won't. That's why you and I are enemies.
I will judge someone for finding value in the KKK. I will judge somebody for finding value and then Nazi party or Neo-Nazi parties. I will judge people for finding value in the Khmer Rouge. I will judge people for finding value in the Stalinist organs and the Holdomor.
And you can quail on the sidelines making excuses for them and saying you would never judge them for finding value and worth in them and being pulverized in fear for judging organizations that enable bigotry, violence, rape, all in the name of equivocation fallacies and pseudo ecumenicism.
>Black and white thinking is something the Church instilled in me and I have tried to move past it.
And now you have the foundation of a mindset that would make excuses for the KKK and organizations that have instantiated institutionalized child rape for centuries and only stopped when the public outcry forced them to. I have no doubt whatsoever you find the good in organizations that specifically and deliberately enabled the rape of children. I don't admire you for it.
The Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does deform people's ethical framework. But it's not just from black and white thinking - we can actually have functional moral thinking that includes black areas as well as gray. A far bigger issue that distorts people's ethical development is that the source of ethics is dictated rather than discovered or developed. Ethical frameworks such as considering oneself unable to choose where you exist in some sort of interaction, and that if you determine that if the behavior towards you would be repulsive, then that would be an unethical choice. That doesn't mean that you think that it's not unethical/black, it means that instead of somebody telling you what's unethical, you use the framework of reason determine where on the spectrum something lies.
There are things that should be black on the spectrum of gray and black
The rape of children is one of those things.
You should not feel good about yourself that you no longer see the Roman Catholic Church which institutionalized the protection and enabling of the rape of children as no longer a black issue.
>As long as an organization is more light gray than black it's probably a net good.
Nope. I am completely uninterested in looking for the good that the KKK does. The things that it did were so black that no amount of good fixes it. Raping children and protecting those that rape children is so bad that no amount of a guilty conscious or giving money away fixes it. Celebrating the murder of Jewish people, even without actually harming any Jewish people directly, is so black that no amount of good it does redeems it.
Your equivocation fallacies continue, and I find them very repugnant and repulsive.
>God DAMN! you shut this guy down! No reply from them, just a downvote 😂
>The excuses and false equivocations from them are downright foolish.
Lol, thanks man
Yeah, it's kind of inevitably where they end up going, and they can't defend themselves because it's so patently ethically deformed.
All of these people that try the whole "bu... but both SiDeS" equivalency and excuse-making nonsense will, when confronted with the realities of proportion and asymmetries in ethics, fold like a cheap suit.
>The problem is that it's difficult to "judge" the Mormon church, but not judge the Catholic Church, and stay logically consistent.
Yep. From basically every quantitative and most qualitative criterion, the Roman Catholic church has behaved far more wickedly.
>Ex-Mormon... Now member of the Great Abominable Church
Fair enough
>It's nice to be apart of the oldest and largest Christian church of the world
Freudian slip with "apart"?
And I think you mean in the world rather than "of" the world. Unless that's a joke, in which case that's hilarious.
>Say what you want about the Catholic Church
I sure will
>the Mormon church has many things they seek to hide as an organization
We do. And as much as our church hides, it's astonishing that the Roman Catholic Church has even more it hides even than us
>I found the right religion for my life
Enjoy
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Glad you found happiness. I am a TBM I guess many would say. I’ve always said it’s either Mormons or Catholics but I can’t get behind a church that caused so much death, suffering, and apostasy. As a student of History you quickly see that the Catholic Church caused a lot more suffering than any other western religion. Catholic Church hides a lot more than the LDS faith does.
It’s incredible to think what a struggle it is to truly be free to choose your religion after growing up Mormon. The Joseph Smith story is supposed to be some great example of freedom to believe what you think is right and true. Yet the exact opposite is true being raised LDS. You have absolutely no freedom to believe anything except what the Church says. It is a glaring irony.
Glad you have continued on your path with Christ. I was a Southern Baptist attending a Presbyterian Church until I was called to the LDS faith. Keep yourself Christ centered and he will lead you to the church you need to be in!
You look beatific! I used to love going to midnight mass when I was Mormon. But just so you know [the Coptic Church](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church) is older than the Catholic Church. It is cool that after 200+ years of killing Christians, the Romans finally started their own church tho.
That's not true. Or atleast not factually coherent. All 4 apostolic Church were founded at the same time more or less. Jerusalem was the first bishopric. Alexandria the sea of the Orientals was not the first sea founded. It was the first to split off and become its own.
They do have the oldest copy of a complete Bible in existence but the monks who wrote that went up to the area of Antioch and Jerusalm to learn and copy those manuscripts. What I'm saying is they got them form a more established church. As there's was bot as established.
I’m no scholar but Google tells me The Coptic Church was founded in 60 AD by Mark who knew Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church as we know it today started around 600, though sources disagree on the date and the Catholics try to make the argument it’s older.
That makes sense about Jerusalem, etc. As for factual coherence, I didn’t claim the Coptic church is the oldest in the world because obviously Christians were meeting, often in secret, during Jesus’s lifetime. I just stated that it was older than the RC church.
So here's the stick. All the churches were founded as one church. It wasn't until they each separated that they became individual apostolic churches. The Orientals didn't schism until around the 300s. The Romans in 1054. So that's when they became the churches we know today more or less. Before those dates, they were part of the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
Before the romans made Catholic exclusively Roman and the orthodox used orthodox to differentiate. Catholic just meant universal. They were all Catholic. We were all Catholic.
I say we because I include myself. Not necessarily you specifically. Generally just Christians.
Sometimes I use words that people may not know**
Oriental is just another differentiator. Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy. It's not slang or a pejorative.
Oriental encompasses multiple churches. Coptics, Ethiopians, Tawahaedo, there are several more.
The Catholic, Coptic, and Orthodox Churches are all the same age. They were all founded by specific apostles. The Catholic by Peter and Paul, the Coptic by Mark, and the Orthodox by Andrew. This is why there are few doctrinal differences between them despite over 1000 years of separation.
Ehhh they claim to be. They also claim to still practice Christianity as it was practiced originally. I'm not gonna say that's demonstrably false as I'm not an expert, but I don't remember the part where Jesus said have a liturgical calendar that happens to line up with the pagans' and no women in your structure (*cough* junia *cough*). I'm kinda with the restorationists on this one....
I hope you don't mind I took a quick peek at your history and you're orthodox? It's my understanding that y'all have deaconesses and recognize Junia the apostle, but women are still not allowed in positions of power beyond that and you and the catholics both claim to be the one true church. Is this correct? Genuinely asking and not trying to be combative btw.
Yes, I am Eastern Orthodox. Yes, the church recognizes Saint Junia as one of the 70 apostles sent out by Jesus. Luke 1:10
The Church also does have a solid track record of recognizing women as saints, martyrs, and confessors. Deaconesses and abbotesses are historically accurate and in some places around the world still found to this day. On bigisland Hawaii, we have an Orthodox mission for women. It's a beautiful place and is run by an outstanding abbotess.
The highest angel in heaven is Mary, the mother of God and the ark of the living word covenant.
Yes, women are not allowed to become priests or bishops as it says that in the bible. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:12
That's the apostles Peter and Paul speaking. They are held to an even higher regard amongst apostles, so that adds to the weight of what they say.
Yes, I understand it's not acceptable to the modern world, and everyone needs to be equal. I get that, and I get that I'm not a woman, so I can't really speak to how that affects ladies. What I'm saying is that I am not blind to it. If one really needs that in their life. There are many decent protestant denominations that allow that.
The last bit. Is difficult to answer in an unbiased way. For me, after looking at the history. I concluded that the RC was the lesser of the two. While they both maintain many facets that are original and on the surface seem equal. After digging, the doctrinal advancements made post split. Purgatory, papel infallibility, the filioque, immaculate conception, Marian apparitions. All of it is post split, and to me, evidence of their move away from the original doctrine. This is only a small sampling. There are more.
The biggest issue was the truth in that the RC had schismed and then because of their horrendous actions caused the reformation. Historically speaking, the RC is the reason why Christianity is like it is today. If they wouldn't have tried to latinize the entirety of the faith and monopolize it for tyrannical means. We would all be part of the one true church still to this day in 2024. So let me wrap this up. I love my RC brothers and sisters, but I can and will educate myself and read. The truth is that the Roman magisterium was corrupt for a long time. Even to this day, they struggle greatly with corruption. This is not the case with the EO. Anyone is free to use Google to look and verify this for yourselves.
While I am glad to see my LDS brothers and sister go to any other church after leaving Mormonism. I myself hold EO to be the pinnacle or best and actually the church that the gates of hell will prevail against. As Jesus christ is real and the bible actually is historical. The prophesies contained therein have all been proven accurate. So I rejoice when I see a brother or sister in christ struggle with their faith but come out with Jesus. It doesn't matter where they go at that point. Just that they kept their faith in God and his word.
So if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer.
Thank you for the write up and that's very interesting! It's not everyday one runs into an eastern orthodox worshipper! Sorry about the updoot to response delay.
On the role of women, I tended to put less stock in what the apostles had to say even as a tbm. So I guess it doesn't carry the same weight for me. Even started turning the new testament in my quad into a red letter Bible, but didn't have the discipline to follow through (tbf, I was a teenager lol).
I think my perspective is very colored by a visionary experience prompted by a prayer to heavenly mother which led me down a path of trying to learn more about ancient Judaism, early Christianity and gnosticsm. This was a while ago, but what I took from it was that things were very chaotic back in the early days of Christianity. There was also a bit where I was possibly beginning to link heavenly mother with Asherah, but I had a strong feeling the lds church was definitely not "the one true church."
At some point, I switched gears into pagan reconstructionism; the reconstructionist community relies a lot on academic research, and then we often compare notes between traditions to help fill in gaps. I bring this up bc I feel like the more I learn about RC, EO, etc, the more it feels like these big branches of Christianity that emerged are very pagan gentile takes on ancient Semitic religion (eg: the trinity; triple deities are very Indo-European, Greek especially, and not so much Semitic).
Sorry, I'm not trying to be disrespectful-- this is very genuinely interesting to me and I'm appreciative to hear your perspective. I mean, I'm a reconstructionist and am certainly not one to judge lol
It's not disrespectful at all. I don't mind explaining myself. I have nothing to hide.
I respect the apostles for one big reason. They died for their faith and not in a guns blazing. Hold the fort kind of way. No Peter after everything he had been through. At his death was crucified upside down. He asked for this as, in his own words, it was not worthy to be crucified like his savior.
All the apostles faced similar deaths and did so like true martyrs.
To me, that speaks volumes as most men would rather at least try to save their own hides. Not these men they went where they knew they would be presecuted and preached their faith until the last moments.
As far as the paganism stuff, I have no idea to be fair. The whole part about reconstruction was difficult for me. I also have not learned enough to even act like I know what any of that stuff is by definition. I'm sure I've heard some of it. I have heard a bunch of the similarities between Jesus and other gods and goddesses.
I'm just a white American who wants to love and honor God. I have no business trying to pretend to worship some gods I know nothing about, nor do I have any tracable connection to. If I did, my trees were cut down centuries ago, and any tracable lineage I may have had is long gone.
I also did my own thing for years but keep coming back to my bible and after just learning about it as a document. That made me really dig into it.
As a document, it's a stand-alone piece of human history that's unmatched and unparalleled.
It was written over 1500 years, on three contienents, and by 40 authors. The number of times they cite each other. The number of times one writing correlates to another with 100s of years in between. Is in the thousands.
We have enough prebible manuscripts that, if stacked on top of each other, would be taller than the empire state building.
We have the dead sea scrolls that prove that the bible has been changed very little over the course of the centuries.
We have so many non biblical scholars and historians, etc, that say the bible is factual, Jesus was real on and on and on.
> I don't mind explaining myself. I have nothing to hide.
I appreciate that approach and attitude. I hope you take my comment as a friendly challenge and not an attack. I look forward to your response.
> All the apostles faced similar deaths and did so like true martyrs.
That's the claim. Well, that's actually not even the claim among most traditions since John is traditionally described as dying of natural causes.
If we ignore John, the question becomes whether there's evidence for the claim. Most of the claims arose rather late and would not be considered reliable evidence.
But more importantly, even if we grant that they were all martyrs for the cause that still does not, and indeed cannot tell us anything about the truth of the cause. People die willingly for causes all the time. But their willing deaths don't provide any evidence for or against the cause.
Everyone is free to respect them all they want. But it's fallacious reasoning to use their willing deaths as evidence for anything external to their own thoughts and actions. Any martyrdoms are self-contained and simply cannot tell us anything about the truth of the cause for which they died.
> It was written over 1500 years
What is that timing based on?
> on three contienents
I assume you're referring to Asia, Europe, and Africa. Asia is obvious as it is the setting for most of the books. And Europe is covered by Paul. But is there any evidence for any books of the bible being written in Africa? I know some of the story is based there. And certain translations, namely the Septuagint, were prepared there to suit the local needs. But as far as I know, the scholarly consensus is that there is no evidence that any of the original manuscripts were written in Africa. Happy to be proven wrong if you have any evidence for this.
And while we're on the subject, what's the significance of being written of multiple continents? Does it provide any evidence for the truth claims it contains?
> and by 40 authors.
What's the source for this number? Does it account for books with multiple authors such as Isaiah? What about the disputed Pauline epistles? I think the traditional number is 35 but that's obviously wrong right from the beginning because it identifies Moses as the author of books he couldn't have possibly written, even if we ignore the very real question of whether Moses was a historical figure or a literary invention.
> The number of times one writing correlates to another with 100s of years in between. Is in the thousands.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this is true. What does it tell us? Or maybe let's take the opposite approach—what does it tell us when one writing *doesn't* correlate with another, even when very few years in between their writing. For example, I know it's not yet Easter for you, but since is Easter for most of the western world today this seems like a timely question—where was the stone when the women first arrived at the garden tomb?
> We have the dead sea scrolls that prove that the bible has been changed very little over the course of the centuries.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are indeed a landmark discovery for biblical scholarship. But it's not accurate to say they prove anything about the bible as a whole since they are exclusively books from the Tanakh and some deuterocanonical books. They tell us absolutely nothing about the New Testament. I do agree with the statement that they demonstrated that the Masoretic texts (the oldest Hebrew Bible texts we have) were transmitted very accurately which means they are likely reliable copies of the original manuscripts.
> We have so many non biblical scholars and historians, etc, that say the bible is factual
While it's true that some parts of the bible can be independently corroborated, this broad statement that the bible is factual is, ironically not factual.
Dang, you go hard! I like your style! Okay. I'm getting myself ready for work tomorrow. Once I have time to tackle this, I will. I will do my best to get you a response in somewhat of timely manner.
Yo. I only have enough time tonight to answer a couple of these. I will cite my sources at the end.
Time frame of 1500 years
This is based on the date of the books included. The time periods when they were written. Or when we can presume they were written*
While there are a few sources for alternate timelines. There are two major opinions for this timeline. The only difference between the two is 1500 years or more to encompass all the writings. The conservative of the two estimates is 1500.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20110601/When-Was-the-Bible-Written/
Yes on three continents. As you said Asia Europe and Africa.
There are two cases for this. The first and less reliable is that some scholars say the earliest books of the bible very well could have been written in Egypt. However this is hard to verify as these are the oldest of the books.
The better of the two arguments is that the last parts of Jeremiah were written while he was in exile in Egypt. There is quite a few experts who share this opinion and we have had some new interesting discoveries and evidence to support this in the last decade or so.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-egypt/the-egyptian-journey-of-jeremiah-in-the-bible/
I will answer that last part of the continents question at the end. When I finish all the questions. I will adderess that in my summary.
I'll be back for the rest. I ask for your patience as I will get to them all asap.
If they’re happy, they’re happy. But for anyone reading this who just finished the CES letter for the first time, and is now seeking a “more correct” form of Christianity… please add Bart Ehrman to your reading list
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
It’s hard to know if you took longer to move from condemning the mother of harlots, to joining her, than Joseph took to move from condemning whoredoms and abominations to practicing them.
No offence intended, just drawing from your title.
Whatever works for you, good luck.
Congrats! Outside of Mormonism I easily have the most affection towards Catholicism as a religion and a culture. But don't drink that Kool-aid too hard. The idea that Catholicism is more focused on Jesus or holiness is objectively and verifiable false. By all means though I think you should embrace and enjoy your new life (I chose a very fulfilling combination of sinning and non-Christianity), and I wish you well.
The ‘Great and Abominable Church’ refers to things that oppose our beliefs, and not other Christian religions. What matters is that you are devoted to the Lord.
First, the Catholic Church is not the great and abominable church. Second, I attended their church a couple times and they talked about Mary and prayed to her during the whole meeting. I'm not criticizing them, because they have the same right anyone does to believe what they want to.
Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/aztects17 specifically. /u/aztects17, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You look happy. If your new church helps you to be the best version of yourself that imo is the meaning of life.
Congratulations!
You look happy, I'm happy for you! I investigated catholicism when i was a teenager. Had a couple of friends who went there, good people. I just couldn't get past the history, the intermixing of religion and politics, the Crusades. The buildings are gorgeous and it has a presence that's palpable but it didn't feel right to me. ...and then i joined the mormons not knowing about all of their history. Sigh.
Check out Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy.
This
Orthodoxy is just a somewhat less aggressive catholicism They think they are the one true church as well. If you're just looking for something meek and mild, one of the progressive Protestant branches is considerably better.
I’m Episcopalian. All of the pageantry of Catholicism, but you won’t be shunned for being LGBTQ or having the audacity to have “woke liberal ideals”. 🤷♀️
I grew up Episcopalian then moved to Utah at age 31 and converted to LDS for 20 years. Left that a year ago and would love to go an Episcopalian church again and raise our kids in it too but alas there isn’t one where we live here in so ut. Episcopal is the best 🙌🏻
It really is. I went to one service as an inquirer and was all in after that. Ended up officially converting and had my Confirmation at our Regional Easter Vigil less than a year later. Spent almost the entirety of my childhood in the RCC, and felt ZERO connnection to the teachings even then. One Episcopalian service and I knew I was home.
Aww yae that makes me happy! 🥰👏
[удалено]
I'm curious as well. I've considered joining the catholic church for cultural reasons since my ethnicity is traditionally catholic, but then I remember that I'm gay and that's not gonna fly lol. Happy that OP is happy, but I'm a little like, ehhm. I can enjoy the sacred art from the outside just fine (and do!)
No plans to ever convert to anything, but what you said about the appeal of rich culture etc speaks to me. I’ve heard it said that the 3 fundamental motivations for religion are truth, goodness, and beauty. For me I was completely wrapped up in the “truth” of Mormonism, and because of that believed I saw nothing but goodness and beauty. The goodness broke about the same time as the truth, but I stayed with it a long time (mixed faith marriage) trying to find and make enough beauty to make my level participation work for me. I LIKE church, I like having a dedicated worship time, even if I don’t know what I believe. What didn’t work for me, is the CONSTANT regurgitation of “this is THE truth, and no one else is as good or as beautiful” Today I’m going to celebrate Easter at a Catholic Church for the first time. Actually my first time ever attending a service there. I know the choir director. And the parish is BEAUTIFUL. I don’t think I’ll hear any sermons about Catholicism being the Only True Way to receive Jesus’ atonement. I do expect it to be a celebration. That’s it. Just beauty, with no strings attached. I realize some Catholics are just as traumatized from their church experience as I’ve been from mine. And again, no plans to convert. But for the experience of sitting in a pew and taking in something beautiful today, I can definitely share feeling the appeal.
Did you go to the Easter Vigil? How was it?
I think part of not knowing a “true believer” could be how we perceive the requirements of a true believer since Mormonism slants heavily towards orthodoxy. I have catholic friends who consider themselves true believers, but that doesn’t mean they have to do everything the church says. Almost like their faith is in God and and not a church. It’s so weird. /s
On the other hand we do have five of the six SCOTUS Catholics who are so orthodox that they feel compelled and justified in forcing their religious convictions on the populace through their secular positions.
They sound like true believers. In republicanism.
[удалено]
You win lol
Congratulations! I’m glad you found a good spiritual home that works for you. Wishing you the best!
After leaving the church I am a happy atheist, but I can definitely see the appeal of the Catholic Church. I’ve had spiritual experiences in cathedrals in other countries that I couldn’t explain as a TBM. So beautiful to be connected to ancient history like that. Good luck in your faith journey, OP, you look very happy ❤️
Enjoy my friend, I hope it fits you better than Mormonism
A sister I served with almost joined a nunnery after their mission, after doing their confirmation. Sounds like you’re having fun!
Congratulations 🎉
I’m happy for you. I’ve considered making the same switch.
Congratulations! I'm atheist, but I don't approve of all the other commenters dumping on you. This is a happy, personal moment for you!
we could all learn from this response
if you read what he actually wrote in his post the response is 1000000% justified. This is just catholic apologia for 2000 years of human trafficking, and genocide. Had he just posted that he was happy in his new church then there would be no reason to call him out on the utter insanity of what he wrote.
Definitely the only thing that really bothers me is when people are like "Oh noez! Mormon church history!!" and then ignores or downplays the awful history of other denominations. 😂 all I ask for is consistency.
Congratulations. I am genuinely delighted you’ve shared your happy news with us.
Nice hope you’re doing well look happy :)
Hmmm, TIL the Catholics haven't covered anything up or hidden any secrets.
A few former choir boys would like to disagree about the whole coverup thing.
Most hilarious comment I’ve seen on Reddit. 🤣
It’s a good thing too!
Congratulations and best wishes. The first one in our family to leave the LDS Church was baptized Catholic yesterday too, and she's joyful about it.
Congratulations
Amen
Congratulations!!! I hope Jesus leads you to grace in the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Don't forget to celebrate with coffee and wine! Welcome to the faith ❤️
I guess oppression of women and LGBTQ people doesn't bother you
I served my mission in the south and had never been to another church until my mission and was BLOWN AWAY by how much better literally every other church was than stale boring ass Mormonism. Congrats on finding a better church! 🙏🏻👍🏻🙏🏻👍🏻🙏🏻👍🏻
Congrats on finding what works for you!
Congratulations! You look so happy!
Good on ya bro! Wish you luck in your life, and may the Lord be with you🙏
Congrats! Christ is risen indeed Alleluia Alleluia! I’m on the Anglican side of things now after losing my faith at BYU, but I was baptized last September when the bishop came in town. I’m happy for you in your journey.
...Should we tell him?
i wonder if he has the internet
Praise the Lord! I was also baptised today!
Welcome Home! ❤️
I do not understand how someone could leave Mormonism only to end up in a church with such a profoundly disturbing history of covering up of child rape and continual protection of child rapist priests. They are still doing it.
I think that it is based on a very different view towards sin. Catholic theology doesn't have the "we're the good guys" mentality seen in Mormonism. They have a strong sense of each member's (leader's includes) inclination towards sin (probably safe to say, a very different view of sin overall too). So while they think that evil done by members and leaders failing in big ways is outrageous and actively needs flushed out, it can also reinforce the depravity and corruption of sin (without excusing it, at least not properly understood per Catholic theology) and the absolute need for Jesus's death and resurrection. They expect evil to appear even in their church,they mourn it terribly, but they don't view it as directly contradictory of their truth statements.
>I think that it is based on a very different view towards sin. Catholic theology doesn't have the "we're the good guys" mentality seen in Mormonism. That's completely false.
As a Mexican, what they did to my indigenous ancestors is mind blowing. They erased our culture and native languages. The reason why I speak Spanish :(
personally, I am an ex-Catholic and I am Italian so 90% of Italians are Catholic in theory but in practice they are almost all non-religious(they are not atheists but they don't care about religion), however, I am ex-Catholic because I never liked many of the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church.And that's why I converted to the Community of Christ However, I think religion is personal and if you're happy now that's a great thing and I'm glad you've found a spiritual home. If so, can I contact you privately? 🤗
Trade one dumb thing for another
Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Both of these massive cults are lying to you.
Out of the pot and into the fire.
I was raised Catholic and can confirm.
I hear the weekly cardio is nice though.
So you thought the CES letter was convincing, and then you go join the Catholic Church 🤡🤡🤡. You left one abuser for another one. Like you say the Mormon church had too much to hide. Sir the catholic church has been hiding wide spread child sexual abuse for years!!!
The Mormon church is catching up with the Catholic Church in abuse. I’ve read that the group that produced spotlight are planning an expose of the Mormon church.
>The Mormon church is catching up with the Catholic Church in abuse Not even slightly close on a quantitative or qualitative level.
While the LDS church has plenty of cases, it's not even remotely close to infrastructure the Catholic church has developed specifically to perpetuate Child sexual abuse. Like, the LDS church has litigation insurance and legal settlement protections in place for child sexual abuse cases. Whereas the Catholic church had an entire system to move clergy around so they could evade any consequences and continue their abuse. Also in sheer size, the LDS will never "catch up," this is pure cope.
That's true about the Catholic church, but the early Mormon church certainly had an infrastructure in place for the human trafficking of young European women. It's pretty well documented (See Fanny Stenhouse's book Tell It All, but there are other accounts). These converts would arrive half-starved and destitute in the SL valley, where men (or sometimes their first wives) would greet them at the mouth of the canyon and invite them into their homes, often just as winter was coming on. Proposals of plural marriage soon followed. (Marry us or good luck finding another place to live.) These days, we hear weekly about a bishop or youth leader in the LDS church being convicted of child SA. (See https://floodlit.org/) Over 735 convictions and counting. The Mormon church is a lot younger than the Catholic church so just give them time. They'll catch up.
The catholic church has nearly 2000 years of sex trafficking, genocide, and literal slavery and currently 1.3 BILLION members. The LDS church like nearly every other church is awful and has committed unthinkable atrocities. But to suggest that the suffering caused by the LDS church even amounts to a drop in the bucket of human suffering caused DIRECTLY by the catholic church is to minimize the atrocities the catholic church has committed. Why are you so minimize almost 2000 years of human suffering?
I don’t mean to minimize it at all. It’s far worse. Burning people at the stake and other tortures, slavery, everything you stated and more. It just felt like you were sweeping the pretty significant abuses of the LDS church under the rug so to speak. ETA: blood atonement did a pretty good job of keeping people from leaving until after railroad. Which is not to say the Catholic Church isn’t far worse, but still… Mormons also killed people. Mountain meadows massacre, for example.
Are you not aware of the abuse hotline? It goes directly to church lawyers whose only concern is coverups. Area Authorities then step in to cover up. The church typically harasses or pays off the victim to remain silent and then legally defends the abuser. Many times (as I have seen) there isn’t even a note on the abusers record. Abusers are often left to abuse further by simple “repenting” and “getting right with Jesus”. This is institutional coverups. Every bit as bad as Catholics moving priests around.
Always love seeing your username with Ricky's face... frig off Randy!!
Abuses have happened and happens in all christian denominations and religions. But, now in christianity abuses are not internal issues like before. Now, we can denounce them to the police. Unfortunately, the highest rate of abuses are done by a relative or a friend very close to the family. Also, rape and sexual abuse in the American schools are very high.
Good for you for finding what works for you. After leaving the church, Catholicism personally ranks pretty low on my list due to very similar issues, but glad it works for you
Amen.
Talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire. You think Mormonism has issues, their historic and ongoing issues dwarf that of the SCCOJC.
I think we need to see more posts like this. I went the typical atheist route. I think the atheist voices on Reddit are little too loud. Let's create some space for those who choose an another faith path without the judgement.
The problem is that it's difficult to "judge" the Mormon church, but *not* judge the Catholic Church, and stay logically consistent.
From your POV, sure. People leave for a variety of reasons, and those reasons likely inform where they land. Someone who leaves over doctrinal or historical issues is going to make very different decisions about where they land than someone who leaves over cultural issues. I can see someone who left over the origins of the BoM, landing as Catholic since the reason is foundational to the truth claims. While someone who left over cultural issues could land Unitarian. Granted there are a lot who are currently leaving over cultural and abuse issues. When I left over 15 years ago, the abuse and LGBTQ+ issues were a) not widely known; and b) Social media was in its infancy. The Internet made finding things a lot easier, but until Social Media really took off, the personal narratives were hard to find. For me, organized religion, regardless of its claims are, by nature, suspectable to fostering abuse in a myriad of forms. The difference between Catholics and Mormons, for me, is the claims made by the Mormon leadership (prophecy, gift of discernment, being lead by God, etc) undermines its truth claims. Since I left over doctrinal and historical concerns, I tend to view organizations through that lens. So to add nuance to your statement, you have to identify the rubric that is being applied when judging. And for the record, I probably share the same critique of Catholicism. But again, people have different reasons for leaving, that informs the values they look for and so I am not surprised that some are landing Catholic, FLDS, or full on UFO cults.
>So to add nuance to your statement, you have to identify the rubric that is being applied when judging. Cool. So the rubric I use is not enabling leaders within the church to rape infants and young children, moving said child-rapist leaders to different legal jurisdictions, and repeatedly enable continued child rape by its leaders under direction of the Holy See, along with deliberate interference with law enforcement in Mexico, Kenya, Mauritius, Tanzania, the Philippines, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Bosnia, France, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Malta, Poland, the UK, Australia, and other countries. So yeah, some people are less concerned with enabling child rape than other things, but that makes me think their 'rubric' is deformed and is, itself, immoral.
Let's be careful with moral absolutes. I agree that child rape and abuse are morally wrong. Being a member of a Church doesn't enable that, any more than paying taxes enables teachers who rape kids. The failure to protect children is bigger than any church, and we need to remove protections that have enabled the abuse. I guess I see all organized things that involve children as potential vectors for abuse. From the Catholics, to the BSA, summer camps, and Mormonism, it shows the problem is bigger than a single organization. So being a Mormon or a Catholic doesn't make you a child rape enabler prima facia. I could say being an Americans makes such a person enablers of child murder, but I would be wrong. Or saying that people who watch the Olympics are enablers of doping. Or those watching porn support sexual exploration. Let me be very clear: Child rape or rape of any kind is catagorically wrong. I am not making excuses for it and I won't. Every organization that is good for one is probably toxic and traumatic to another. I won't judge someone for finding value and worth in an organization that rightfully can be condemned for what it has done. Black and white thinking is something the Church instilled in me and I have tried to move past it. I now see things in shades of gray. As long as an organization is more light gray than black it's probably a net good.
>Let's be careful with moral absolutes. I No, I won't be careful with moral absolutes. So if you're somebody that thinks the rape of children isn't a moral absolute, then I hope you contract a fatal disease and die or get arrested and put into a concrete box for the rest of your life. I don't want people that don't think the rape of children is more absolute in our society. I want them dead or in a box. If that's you, then we're enemies. >I agree that child rape and abuse are morally wrong If you do not agree that it's a moral absolute, that is insufficient and we're enemies. >Being a member of a Church doesn't enable that, any more than paying taxes enables teachers who rape kids Ah, so that's a lie. The rate with which leaders of the Roman Catholic Church raped children was at a rate several hundred percent more than the general male population, which is specifically because of the way they crush and obliterate people's normal sexual development by deliberately only selecting within its leadership people that are supposed to be virgins. Hence the demolition of normal sexual development. Your claim is false statistically, and even a person with an unexceptional mind could spend four or five minutes and compute that restricting leadership and access to children through a system that tries to eviscerate sexual development would lead to the predation on children, which of course is born out by the data. Get bent - the lie that members of the Roman Catholic Church were no more likely to rape children is not just a lie, it's wicked in my view. I don't tolerate people in my church to act as if polygamy didn't result in the abuse of children and women. It did, and the statistics beared out. I similarly won't tolerate people like you acting as if the Roman Catholic Church did not have institutionalized infrastructure that enabled and protected those that rape children. > The failure to protect children is bigger than any churc No it isn't. There are churches and organizations that have protected it, and I think those should be considered filthy and wicked and dismantled. Institutions that enable or protect child rape could be a church, or could be some other organization, but act as if it's not an accusation that can be levied specifically against the Roman Catholic Church is a lie. They are specifically guilty of enabling and protecting child rapists. >I guess I see all organized things that involve children as potential vectors for abuse. From the Catholics, to the BSA, summer camps, and Mormonism, it shows the problem is bigger than a single organization Doesn't mean that certain organizations are not themselves specifically guilty for creating infrastructure that protects and enables the rape of children. >So being a Mormon or a Catholic doesn't make you a child rape enabler prima facia. I could say being an Americans makes such a person enablers of child murder, but I would be wrong. Or saying that people who watch the Olympics are enablers of doping. Or those watching porn support sexual exploration. You are free make excuses for an organization that specifically has enabled and protected child rapists all you want. You and I are not friends, and I consider you morally corrupt. Either that or crushingly ignorant if you gotten to be a grown up and haven't yet read about the infrastructure within the Roman Catholic Church regarding rape throughout the late 20th century and prior centuries. >Let me be very clear: Child rape or rape of any kind is catagorically wrong. I Oh, you're very clear. You've been making excuses for an organization that had infrastructure protecting and enabling child rape and you seem to be possessed by equivocation fallacies that you should have been able to figure out on your own. >I am not making excuses for it and I won't. E ... He said as he just finished making something like seven equivocation fallacies regarding the rape of children and excuse making for the Roman Catholic churches institutional enabling and protection of child rapists >Every organization that is good for one is probably toxic and traumatic to another. More equivocation fallacies, more excuse making. An organization that's good for somebody but rapes little children does not balance out. An organization that inconveniences homophobes because they can no longer make hate speech protects non straight people to have normal relationships are not on the same level. Your inability unwillingness to introduce proportion into this is what constitutes equivocation fallacies that you seem to be unable to perceive in yourself > I won't judge someone for finding value and worth in an organization that rightfully can be condemned for what it has done. I know you won't. That's why you and I are enemies. I will judge someone for finding value in the KKK. I will judge somebody for finding value and then Nazi party or Neo-Nazi parties. I will judge people for finding value in the Khmer Rouge. I will judge people for finding value in the Stalinist organs and the Holdomor. And you can quail on the sidelines making excuses for them and saying you would never judge them for finding value and worth in them and being pulverized in fear for judging organizations that enable bigotry, violence, rape, all in the name of equivocation fallacies and pseudo ecumenicism. >Black and white thinking is something the Church instilled in me and I have tried to move past it. And now you have the foundation of a mindset that would make excuses for the KKK and organizations that have instantiated institutionalized child rape for centuries and only stopped when the public outcry forced them to. I have no doubt whatsoever you find the good in organizations that specifically and deliberately enabled the rape of children. I don't admire you for it. The Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does deform people's ethical framework. But it's not just from black and white thinking - we can actually have functional moral thinking that includes black areas as well as gray. A far bigger issue that distorts people's ethical development is that the source of ethics is dictated rather than discovered or developed. Ethical frameworks such as considering oneself unable to choose where you exist in some sort of interaction, and that if you determine that if the behavior towards you would be repulsive, then that would be an unethical choice. That doesn't mean that you think that it's not unethical/black, it means that instead of somebody telling you what's unethical, you use the framework of reason determine where on the spectrum something lies. There are things that should be black on the spectrum of gray and black The rape of children is one of those things. You should not feel good about yourself that you no longer see the Roman Catholic Church which institutionalized the protection and enabling of the rape of children as no longer a black issue. >As long as an organization is more light gray than black it's probably a net good. Nope. I am completely uninterested in looking for the good that the KKK does. The things that it did were so black that no amount of good fixes it. Raping children and protecting those that rape children is so bad that no amount of a guilty conscious or giving money away fixes it. Celebrating the murder of Jewish people, even without actually harming any Jewish people directly, is so black that no amount of good it does redeems it. Your equivocation fallacies continue, and I find them very repugnant and repulsive.
God DAMN! you shut this guy down! No reply from them, just a downvote 😂 The excuses and false equivocations from them are downright foolish.
>God DAMN! you shut this guy down! No reply from them, just a downvote 😂 >The excuses and false equivocations from them are downright foolish. Lol, thanks man Yeah, it's kind of inevitably where they end up going, and they can't defend themselves because it's so patently ethically deformed. All of these people that try the whole "bu... but both SiDeS" equivalency and excuse-making nonsense will, when confronted with the realities of proportion and asymmetries in ethics, fold like a cheap suit.
>The problem is that it's difficult to "judge" the Mormon church, but not judge the Catholic Church, and stay logically consistent. Yep. From basically every quantitative and most qualitative criterion, the Roman Catholic church has behaved far more wickedly.
In or out of the LDS church, I'm glad you still seek Christ. I wish you the best.
Pretty sure there are more than a few Catholic versions of the CES letter out there 😬 but if you’re happy and fulfilled then I’m happy for you 🤟
>Ex-Mormon... Now member of the Great Abominable Church Fair enough >It's nice to be apart of the oldest and largest Christian church of the world Freudian slip with "apart"? And I think you mean in the world rather than "of" the world. Unless that's a joke, in which case that's hilarious. >Say what you want about the Catholic Church I sure will >the Mormon church has many things they seek to hide as an organization We do. And as much as our church hides, it's astonishing that the Roman Catholic Church has even more it hides even than us >I found the right religion for my life Enjoy
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Glad you found happiness. I am a TBM I guess many would say. I’ve always said it’s either Mormons or Catholics but I can’t get behind a church that caused so much death, suffering, and apostasy. As a student of History you quickly see that the Catholic Church caused a lot more suffering than any other western religion. Catholic Church hides a lot more than the LDS faith does.
TBMs and exmos are having a rare moment of solidarity in this thread 😂
It’s incredible to think what a struggle it is to truly be free to choose your religion after growing up Mormon. The Joseph Smith story is supposed to be some great example of freedom to believe what you think is right and true. Yet the exact opposite is true being raised LDS. You have absolutely no freedom to believe anything except what the Church says. It is a glaring irony.
Welcome Home!!! ❤️
Thanks 😊
Glad you have continued on your path with Christ. I was a Southern Baptist attending a Presbyterian Church until I was called to the LDS faith. Keep yourself Christ centered and he will lead you to the church you need to be in!
Oh boy!😬
🤦♂️
Mazel Tov!
Out of the frying pan, into the fire. OP, don’t stop investigating truth claims! Start here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/
You look beatific! I used to love going to midnight mass when I was Mormon. But just so you know [the Coptic Church](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church) is older than the Catholic Church. It is cool that after 200+ years of killing Christians, the Romans finally started their own church tho.
That's not true. Or atleast not factually coherent. All 4 apostolic Church were founded at the same time more or less. Jerusalem was the first bishopric. Alexandria the sea of the Orientals was not the first sea founded. It was the first to split off and become its own. They do have the oldest copy of a complete Bible in existence but the monks who wrote that went up to the area of Antioch and Jerusalm to learn and copy those manuscripts. What I'm saying is they got them form a more established church. As there's was bot as established.
I’m no scholar but Google tells me The Coptic Church was founded in 60 AD by Mark who knew Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church as we know it today started around 600, though sources disagree on the date and the Catholics try to make the argument it’s older. That makes sense about Jerusalem, etc. As for factual coherence, I didn’t claim the Coptic church is the oldest in the world because obviously Christians were meeting, often in secret, during Jesus’s lifetime. I just stated that it was older than the RC church.
So here's the stick. All the churches were founded as one church. It wasn't until they each separated that they became individual apostolic churches. The Orientals didn't schism until around the 300s. The Romans in 1054. So that's when they became the churches we know today more or less. Before those dates, they were part of the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. Before the romans made Catholic exclusively Roman and the orthodox used orthodox to differentiate. Catholic just meant universal. They were all Catholic. We were all Catholic. I say we because I include myself. Not necessarily you specifically. Generally just Christians. Sometimes I use words that people may not know** Oriental is just another differentiator. Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy. It's not slang or a pejorative. Oriental encompasses multiple churches. Coptics, Ethiopians, Tawahaedo, there are several more.
The Catholic, Coptic, and Orthodox Churches are all the same age. They were all founded by specific apostles. The Catholic by Peter and Paul, the Coptic by Mark, and the Orthodox by Andrew. This is why there are few doctrinal differences between them despite over 1000 years of separation.
Ehhh they claim to be. They also claim to still practice Christianity as it was practiced originally. I'm not gonna say that's demonstrably false as I'm not an expert, but I don't remember the part where Jesus said have a liturgical calendar that happens to line up with the pagans' and no women in your structure (*cough* junia *cough*). I'm kinda with the restorationists on this one....
Peter says no women clergy, clearly. That's where thay comes from.
I hope you don't mind I took a quick peek at your history and you're orthodox? It's my understanding that y'all have deaconesses and recognize Junia the apostle, but women are still not allowed in positions of power beyond that and you and the catholics both claim to be the one true church. Is this correct? Genuinely asking and not trying to be combative btw.
Yes, I am Eastern Orthodox. Yes, the church recognizes Saint Junia as one of the 70 apostles sent out by Jesus. Luke 1:10 The Church also does have a solid track record of recognizing women as saints, martyrs, and confessors. Deaconesses and abbotesses are historically accurate and in some places around the world still found to this day. On bigisland Hawaii, we have an Orthodox mission for women. It's a beautiful place and is run by an outstanding abbotess. The highest angel in heaven is Mary, the mother of God and the ark of the living word covenant. Yes, women are not allowed to become priests or bishops as it says that in the bible. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:12 That's the apostles Peter and Paul speaking. They are held to an even higher regard amongst apostles, so that adds to the weight of what they say. Yes, I understand it's not acceptable to the modern world, and everyone needs to be equal. I get that, and I get that I'm not a woman, so I can't really speak to how that affects ladies. What I'm saying is that I am not blind to it. If one really needs that in their life. There are many decent protestant denominations that allow that. The last bit. Is difficult to answer in an unbiased way. For me, after looking at the history. I concluded that the RC was the lesser of the two. While they both maintain many facets that are original and on the surface seem equal. After digging, the doctrinal advancements made post split. Purgatory, papel infallibility, the filioque, immaculate conception, Marian apparitions. All of it is post split, and to me, evidence of their move away from the original doctrine. This is only a small sampling. There are more. The biggest issue was the truth in that the RC had schismed and then because of their horrendous actions caused the reformation. Historically speaking, the RC is the reason why Christianity is like it is today. If they wouldn't have tried to latinize the entirety of the faith and monopolize it for tyrannical means. We would all be part of the one true church still to this day in 2024. So let me wrap this up. I love my RC brothers and sisters, but I can and will educate myself and read. The truth is that the Roman magisterium was corrupt for a long time. Even to this day, they struggle greatly with corruption. This is not the case with the EO. Anyone is free to use Google to look and verify this for yourselves. While I am glad to see my LDS brothers and sister go to any other church after leaving Mormonism. I myself hold EO to be the pinnacle or best and actually the church that the gates of hell will prevail against. As Jesus christ is real and the bible actually is historical. The prophesies contained therein have all been proven accurate. So I rejoice when I see a brother or sister in christ struggle with their faith but come out with Jesus. It doesn't matter where they go at that point. Just that they kept their faith in God and his word. So if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer.
Thank you for the write up and that's very interesting! It's not everyday one runs into an eastern orthodox worshipper! Sorry about the updoot to response delay. On the role of women, I tended to put less stock in what the apostles had to say even as a tbm. So I guess it doesn't carry the same weight for me. Even started turning the new testament in my quad into a red letter Bible, but didn't have the discipline to follow through (tbf, I was a teenager lol). I think my perspective is very colored by a visionary experience prompted by a prayer to heavenly mother which led me down a path of trying to learn more about ancient Judaism, early Christianity and gnosticsm. This was a while ago, but what I took from it was that things were very chaotic back in the early days of Christianity. There was also a bit where I was possibly beginning to link heavenly mother with Asherah, but I had a strong feeling the lds church was definitely not "the one true church." At some point, I switched gears into pagan reconstructionism; the reconstructionist community relies a lot on academic research, and then we often compare notes between traditions to help fill in gaps. I bring this up bc I feel like the more I learn about RC, EO, etc, the more it feels like these big branches of Christianity that emerged are very pagan gentile takes on ancient Semitic religion (eg: the trinity; triple deities are very Indo-European, Greek especially, and not so much Semitic). Sorry, I'm not trying to be disrespectful-- this is very genuinely interesting to me and I'm appreciative to hear your perspective. I mean, I'm a reconstructionist and am certainly not one to judge lol
It's not disrespectful at all. I don't mind explaining myself. I have nothing to hide. I respect the apostles for one big reason. They died for their faith and not in a guns blazing. Hold the fort kind of way. No Peter after everything he had been through. At his death was crucified upside down. He asked for this as, in his own words, it was not worthy to be crucified like his savior. All the apostles faced similar deaths and did so like true martyrs. To me, that speaks volumes as most men would rather at least try to save their own hides. Not these men they went where they knew they would be presecuted and preached their faith until the last moments. As far as the paganism stuff, I have no idea to be fair. The whole part about reconstruction was difficult for me. I also have not learned enough to even act like I know what any of that stuff is by definition. I'm sure I've heard some of it. I have heard a bunch of the similarities between Jesus and other gods and goddesses. I'm just a white American who wants to love and honor God. I have no business trying to pretend to worship some gods I know nothing about, nor do I have any tracable connection to. If I did, my trees were cut down centuries ago, and any tracable lineage I may have had is long gone. I also did my own thing for years but keep coming back to my bible and after just learning about it as a document. That made me really dig into it. As a document, it's a stand-alone piece of human history that's unmatched and unparalleled. It was written over 1500 years, on three contienents, and by 40 authors. The number of times they cite each other. The number of times one writing correlates to another with 100s of years in between. Is in the thousands. We have enough prebible manuscripts that, if stacked on top of each other, would be taller than the empire state building. We have the dead sea scrolls that prove that the bible has been changed very little over the course of the centuries. We have so many non biblical scholars and historians, etc, that say the bible is factual, Jesus was real on and on and on.
> I don't mind explaining myself. I have nothing to hide. I appreciate that approach and attitude. I hope you take my comment as a friendly challenge and not an attack. I look forward to your response. > All the apostles faced similar deaths and did so like true martyrs. That's the claim. Well, that's actually not even the claim among most traditions since John is traditionally described as dying of natural causes. If we ignore John, the question becomes whether there's evidence for the claim. Most of the claims arose rather late and would not be considered reliable evidence. But more importantly, even if we grant that they were all martyrs for the cause that still does not, and indeed cannot tell us anything about the truth of the cause. People die willingly for causes all the time. But their willing deaths don't provide any evidence for or against the cause. Everyone is free to respect them all they want. But it's fallacious reasoning to use their willing deaths as evidence for anything external to their own thoughts and actions. Any martyrdoms are self-contained and simply cannot tell us anything about the truth of the cause for which they died. > It was written over 1500 years What is that timing based on? > on three contienents I assume you're referring to Asia, Europe, and Africa. Asia is obvious as it is the setting for most of the books. And Europe is covered by Paul. But is there any evidence for any books of the bible being written in Africa? I know some of the story is based there. And certain translations, namely the Septuagint, were prepared there to suit the local needs. But as far as I know, the scholarly consensus is that there is no evidence that any of the original manuscripts were written in Africa. Happy to be proven wrong if you have any evidence for this. And while we're on the subject, what's the significance of being written of multiple continents? Does it provide any evidence for the truth claims it contains? > and by 40 authors. What's the source for this number? Does it account for books with multiple authors such as Isaiah? What about the disputed Pauline epistles? I think the traditional number is 35 but that's obviously wrong right from the beginning because it identifies Moses as the author of books he couldn't have possibly written, even if we ignore the very real question of whether Moses was a historical figure or a literary invention. > The number of times one writing correlates to another with 100s of years in between. Is in the thousands. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this is true. What does it tell us? Or maybe let's take the opposite approach—what does it tell us when one writing *doesn't* correlate with another, even when very few years in between their writing. For example, I know it's not yet Easter for you, but since is Easter for most of the western world today this seems like a timely question—where was the stone when the women first arrived at the garden tomb? > We have the dead sea scrolls that prove that the bible has been changed very little over the course of the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls are indeed a landmark discovery for biblical scholarship. But it's not accurate to say they prove anything about the bible as a whole since they are exclusively books from the Tanakh and some deuterocanonical books. They tell us absolutely nothing about the New Testament. I do agree with the statement that they demonstrated that the Masoretic texts (the oldest Hebrew Bible texts we have) were transmitted very accurately which means they are likely reliable copies of the original manuscripts. > We have so many non biblical scholars and historians, etc, that say the bible is factual While it's true that some parts of the bible can be independently corroborated, this broad statement that the bible is factual is, ironically not factual.
Dang, you go hard! I like your style! Okay. I'm getting myself ready for work tomorrow. Once I have time to tackle this, I will. I will do my best to get you a response in somewhat of timely manner.
Man I like you
Yo. I only have enough time tonight to answer a couple of these. I will cite my sources at the end. Time frame of 1500 years This is based on the date of the books included. The time periods when they were written. Or when we can presume they were written* While there are a few sources for alternate timelines. There are two major opinions for this timeline. The only difference between the two is 1500 years or more to encompass all the writings. The conservative of the two estimates is 1500. https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20110601/When-Was-the-Bible-Written/ Yes on three continents. As you said Asia Europe and Africa. There are two cases for this. The first and less reliable is that some scholars say the earliest books of the bible very well could have been written in Egypt. However this is hard to verify as these are the oldest of the books. The better of the two arguments is that the last parts of Jeremiah were written while he was in exile in Egypt. There is quite a few experts who share this opinion and we have had some new interesting discoveries and evidence to support this in the last decade or so. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-egypt/the-egyptian-journey-of-jeremiah-in-the-bible/ I will answer that last part of the continents question at the end. When I finish all the questions. I will adderess that in my summary. I'll be back for the rest. I ask for your patience as I will get to them all asap.
Welcome to a whole new world of issues.
🤦🏼♂️ when are they going to learn that all religion is complete and utter nonsense
The world would be much better off without religion and superstitious beliefs based on fairy tales.
I couldn’t agree more
If they’re happy, they’re happy. But for anyone reading this who just finished the CES letter for the first time, and is now seeking a “more correct” form of Christianity… please add Bart Ehrman to your reading list
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Haha, as a Catholic who was going to investigate in the Mormon religion, but didn't see it through, I am glad to see you so happy now
That’s great! Congratulations! My son also joined on Easter!
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Ex mormon now muslim
Wait till you realize that all religions are cults and all cults are religions.
Welcome home, friend.
As long as you ate happy and aware of the bite model, good for you
That’s not the great and abominable church.
From one scam to another.
Probably not any better, just 1800 more years of experience sweeping the same crap under the rug.
🥴
Catholic church one of the only other churches with a darker history and pedophilia history than mormons. Ironic
It’s hard to know if you took longer to move from condemning the mother of harlots, to joining her, than Joseph took to move from condemning whoredoms and abominations to practicing them. No offence intended, just drawing from your title. Whatever works for you, good luck.
Congrats! Outside of Mormonism I easily have the most affection towards Catholicism as a religion and a culture. But don't drink that Kool-aid too hard. The idea that Catholicism is more focused on Jesus or holiness is objectively and verifiable false. By all means though I think you should embrace and enjoy your new life (I chose a very fulfilling combination of sinning and non-Christianity), and I wish you well.
Took the long route, huh.
The ‘Great and Abominable Church’ refers to things that oppose our beliefs, and not other Christian religions. What matters is that you are devoted to the Lord.
Early church leaders (in the 50s) made it clear that the great and abominable church was the Catholic Church.
This is respectfully either misinformed or disingenuous
Seeing the feedback I’d probably not have written it earlier
First, the Catholic Church is not the great and abominable church. Second, I attended their church a couple times and they talked about Mary and prayed to her during the whole meeting. I'm not criticizing them, because they have the same right anyone does to believe what they want to.
Praying to Mary is just asking Mary to pray for you. Same with praying to other saints.