any former mormons out there?

[zerinus]

I’m admitting nothing. You haven’t proven anything, just denied, denied, denied…

You go ahead and cling to your feelings, thoughts, and impressions. And by all means, don’t bother to do any research into your church’s history. It would be a sin.

I know the history of my Church well enough. There is no sin in that, I can assure you!

As for me, I’ve got to rotate the tires on my car.

Now if you want to discuss a different topic than what we’ve already exhausted, by all means bring it up. On a JW thread you mentioned you had disagreements with what you read in the Catholic Answers tract, Forgiveness of Sins. That should be interesting…

You had referenced that article in response to my question of how the Catholic Church today exercises the power the Lord gave to Peter, to “bind on earth and it would be bound in heaven; and loose on earth and it would be loosed in heaven”. That article was written mainly to justify the Catholic position against the Protestant one; and in the main I tend agree with what it says. I think that the Catholic teaching regarding sin and its remission is theologically more correct than the Protestant one. However, as I read that article, there were a couple of passages that jumped at me as being contrary to the LDS position, and they are these:

Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) and any sins we personally committed before baptism . . .

This is the one point where we disagree. We believe that baptism only washes away our own personal sins, not the sin of Adam. We believe that the sin of Adam is automatically taken care of by the Atonement. Nobody in this life or in the next will ever be punished for the sin of Adam. They will only be punished for their own sins—which they have not repented of. The other is this passage:

Christ told the apostles to follow his example: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

We believe that this is not the correct application or interpretation of the “keys of the kingdom” the Lord gave to Peter that “whatsoever he would bind on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatsoever he would loose on earth would be loosed in heaven”. Whatsoever implies more than just forgiving sins. It is much broader in scope. Also, although the act of binding on earth may, with some stretch of the imagination, be made applicable to the remission of sins, the act of loosening cannot be. To loose here means to undo something that you have already done; or to reverse it. So how can you reverse the forgiveness of sins? Can you “unforgive” someone after he has already been frogiven? How can you “undo” the forgiveness of sins once it has been granted? So clearly, the act of “binding and loosing” one earth, which will be equally “bound or loosed” in heaven, must have a different meaning than the power to forgive (or retain—i.e. not forgive) sins on earth and in heaven.

(Side note to Allweather: Maybe rmcmullen is re-thinking his religious position and returning to his Catholic roots.)

Why don’t you let him speak for himself!

zerinus

 

[Chris-WA]

This is the one point where we disagree. We believe that baptism only washes away our own personal sins, not the sin of Adam. We believe that the sin of Adam is automatically taken care of by the Atonement. Nobody in this life or in the next will ever be punished for the sin of Adam. They will only be punished for their own sins—which they have not repented of.

I’ve heard many LDS says this, and I believe it arises from their own misunderstanding of what traditional Christianity means by “original sin.” Original sin does not mean that we will be punished for the sins of Adam. What it means is that we are born without the state of grace that Adam and Eve possessed before the Fall. We inherit this fallen state by simple virtue of our own humanity. Are we not all born with the consequences of the Fall? Of course we are. We are still mortal, we still toil, mothers still experience great pain in child birth, etc. If we were born in a state of grace, we would be born without these problems, just like Adam and Eve before the Fall. The atonement wiped out sin, but did not return us to a state of grace. That’s what baptism does. Baptism gives us the same state of grace that Adam and Eve had before the fall. It restores the covenantal family bond that was broken by the Fall. It makes us God’s children.

 

[Nan_S]

We believe that baptism only washes away our own personal sins, not the sin of Adam. We believe that the sin of Adam is automatically taken care of by the Atonement. Nobody in this life or in the next will ever be punished for the sin of Adam. They will only be punished for their own sins—which they have not repented of.

This ties into the Catholic teachings about Original Sin and Baptism. I understand that since you do not recognize those teachings the way we do, the rest makes no apparent sense.

In Catholic theology, the atonement of Christ on the cross (I think this is what you are referring to) applies to all who are members of the Body of Christ. The atonement of Christ does not apply to non-members; they remain in darkness. If they are still in darkness at the time of their death, we entrust their souls to the judgment and mercy of God.

To become a member of the Body of Christ we are baptized. The waters of baptism, therefore, cleanse us of all past sin and bring us the blessing of Christ’s atonement.

Tell me, is there some ceremony or rutual through which one is officially recognized as a member of the Mormon church?

We believe that this is not the correct application or interpretation of the “keys of the kingdom” the Lord gave to Peter that “whatsoever

he would bind on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatsoever he would loose on earth would be loosed in heaven”. Whatsoever implies more than just forgiving sins. It is much broader in scope. Also, although the act of binding on earth may, with some stretch of the imagination, be made applicable to the remission of sins, the act of loosening cannot be. To loose here means to undo something that you have already done; or to reverse it. So how can you reverse the forgiveness of sins? Can you “unforgive” someone after he has already been frogiven? How can you “undo” the forgiveness of sins once it has been granted? So clearly, the act of “binding and loosing” one earth, which will be equally “bound or loosed” in heaven, must have a different meaning than the power to forgive (or retain—i.e. not forgive) sins on earth and in heaven.

If I understand you correctly, I believe you are reading the term “whatsoever” the way we intend. Peter and his successors have the right to make official proclamations of faith and morals which we are obligated to follow.

On the other hand, I believe you have “binding and loosing” backwards. Again, if I understand you correctly, you are reading the term “binding” to mean forgiveness and “loosing” to mean the retention of sin. Of course, as you pointed out, this makes no theological sense.

We read it the opposite way: A sin that is bound means the sinner incurs judgment and penalty. A sin that is loosed means the sinner is freed from it and its punishment.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1****445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

Either way, however, the sinner still has to make things right with his neighbors. For instance, if he has stolen something forgiveness means that he need not go to jail, but he still has to make his victim whole again. The act of reparation is one of those “I will show you may faith by my deeds” actions that demonstrates that his repentance is genuine.

Nan

 

[zerinus]

I’ve heard many LDS says this, and I believe it arises from their own misunderstanding of what traditional Christianity means by “original sin.” Original sin does not mean that we will be punished for the sins of Adam. What it means is that we are born without the state of grace that Adam and Eve possessed before the Fall. We inherit this fallen state by simple virtue of our own humanity.

I don’t think that that states the Catholic position accurately; nor does it conform to the quote I had given from that article. The traditional Christian position is that a man is guilty because of the sin of Adam. In other words, even if he never committed any sins in his life, he would still be considered a sinner in the sight of God not because he did anything wrong, but because Adam did something wrong. And that is what that quote from that article implies. What it implies is that the sin of Adam is imputed to him as though he had committed the sin himself, even though he didn’t. That has been the traditional Christian justification for infant baptism; and it is false. A man is not guilty because of the sin of Adam. He is only guilty because of his own sins.

Are we not all born with the consequences of the Fall? Of course we are. We are still mortal, we still toil, mothers still experience great pain in child birth, etc. If we were born in a state of grace, we would be born without these problems, just like Adam and Eve before the Fall. The atonement wiped out sin, but did not return us to a state of grace. That’s what baptism does. Baptism gives us the same state of grace that Adam and Eve had before the fall. It restores the covenantal family bond that was broken by the Fall. It makes us God’s children.

That obviously isn’t the case. If that was so, then by your own definition men should become immortal like Adam after their baptism, which of course is not the case. I don’t dispute that as a result of the fall of Adam mankind have acquired a sinful disposition. But that is not what the theology of Catholic baptism is about. The article I had quoted from clearly states it:

Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) AND any sins we personally committed before baptism . . .

That makes a clear distinction between the sins commited by Adam, and those committed by the individual himself; and it makes clear the purpose of Catholic baptism. And it says that baptism supposedly “washes away the sins inherited from Adam”. Well it doesn’t. It only washes away the sins we have commit ourselves. The sins committed by Adam does not enter into the equation as far as baptism for the remission of our sins is concerned. That is the LDS position.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

This ties into the Catholic teachings about Original Sin and Baptism. I understand that since you do not recognize those teachings the way we do, the rest makes no apparent sense.

In Catholic theology, the atonement of Christ on the cross (I think this is what you are referring to) applies to all who are members of the Body of Christ. The atonement of Christ does not apply to non-members; they remain in darkness. If they are still in darkness at the time of their death, we entrust their souls to the judgment and mercy of God.

To become a member of the Body of Christ we are baptized. The waters of baptism, therefore, cleanse us of all past sin and bring us the blessing of Christ’s atonement.

This is completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. I was commenting on a quote from that article. See my reply to Chris. That article makes a distinction between our own sins, and those we have inherited from Adam; and it says that baptism washes away both types of sins. We don’t believe that it does. We haven’t “inherited any sins from Adam”. We have acquired a disposition to commit sin as a consequence of the fall of Adam; but whatever sins we commit as a result of yielding to that sinful disposition are our own sins, not the sins of Adam; hence baptism only cleanses us from our own sins, not from the sins of Adam.

Tell me, is there some ceremony or rutual through which one is officially recognized as a member of the Mormon church?

Yes, it is baptism and confirmation (the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost).

If I understand you correctly, I believe you are reading the term “whatsoever” the way we intend. Peter and his successors have the right to make official proclamations of faith and morals which we are obligated to follow.

Making official pronouncements on faith and morals is not the same thing as “binding on earth and it will be bound on heaven . . .”

On the other hand, I believe you have “binding and loosing” backwards. Again, if I understand you correctly, you are reading the term “binding” to mean forgiveness and “loosing” to mean the retention of sin. Of course, as you pointed out, this makes no theological sense.

We read it the opposite way: A sin that is bound means the sinner incurs judgment and penalty. A sin that is loosed means the sinner is freed from it and its punishment.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1****445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

Suffice it to say that we interpret Peter’s “binding and loosening” power differently that you do—and we think it has much broader application that just forgiveness of sins. We believe that it relates to the sealing power of the priesthood which make contracts and obligations entered into by that authority binding not only on earth but also in heaven (i.e. after death). For example, when a couple want to get married in your church, the priest or vicar marries them “until death do you part”. In other words, he acknowledges that the marriage contract is binding only during the time of mortality, not beyond the veil of death, or in heaven. The LDS Church has the authority to make that contract binding not only in time, or during mortality, but throughout eternity in heaven. In other words, it binds on earth and it will be bound in heaven; and likewise it can loose on earth and it will be loosed in heaven.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

Making official pronouncements on faith and morals is not the same thing as “binding on earth and it will be bound on heaven . . .”

When the Pope makes a declaration of doctrine on faith and morals, such as the Doctrine of Purgatory and Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, we hold that teaching is valid truth both on earth and in heaven. It is indeed a “whatsoever” that the Pope has the right to declare as the successor to Peter, an eternally sealed truth.

The LDS Church has the authority to make that contract binding not only in time, or during mortality, but throughout eternity in heaven. In other words, it binds on earth and it will be bound in heaven; and likewise it can loose on earth and it will be loosed in heaven.

zerinus
Ok, now I understand the confusion about the term “binding.” Same words, completely different usage.

We think of “binding and loosing” as the priest declaring a sin is bound - unforgiven (a negative action), or as loosed - forgiven. You think of binding as being a spiritual sealing with positive blessings.

Describing your marriage binding as sealing a contract brings another term to mind: “covenant.” The definition I have for “contract” is a conditional agreement which is breakable, but “covenant” is an unconditional everlasting commitment.

Nan

 

[mjf001]

Admit it Nan; you have lost the argument against LDS. You have nothing further to say.

zerinus

How has she lost the argument? She provided proof to back up her points. Her point was thoughtful and intelligent. You only offered up more assertions and faulty logic.

I pray that you can see through the blinders.
Michael

 

[Chris-WA]

I don’t think that that states the Catholic position accurately; nor does it conform to the quote I had given from that article. The traditional Christian position is that a man is guilty because of the sin of Adam. In other words, even if he never committed any sins in his life, he would still be considered a sinner in the sight of God not because he did anything wrong, but because Adam did something wrong. And that is what that quote from that article implies. What it implies is that the sin of Adam is imputed to him as though he had committed the sin himself, even though he didn’t. That has been the traditional Christian justification for infant baptism; and it is false. A man is not guilty because of the sin of Adam. He is only guilty because of his own sins.

You’re still not getting the concept of original sin. It’s not that we are guilty of something because of Adam. Yes, we do inherit the tendency towards sin from Adam’s Fall. That is the absence of grace I was talking about, and that is “original sin.” We are all born with it, like it or not. You will find variations of this teaching among Protestant sects, and I cannot speak for them, but my statements accurately reflect Catholic teaching on the matter.

That obviously isn’t the case. If that was so, then by your own definition men should become immortal like Adam after their baptism, which of course is not the case.

Now you’re being silly. That is not the implication of what I said. We do, however, open the door to eternal life with baptism because baptism establishes our familial relationship as a spiritual son or daughter of God. Baptism makes us, as I believe St. Paul says, an adopted son or daughter of God.

I don’t dispute that as a result of the fall of Adam mankind have acquired a sinful disposition.

That is called “original sin.” Don’t make it out to be more than it is. Baptism washes that away and re-establishes the grace necessary to overcome sin.

But that is not what the theology of Catholic baptism is about. The article I had quoted from clearly states it:

Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) AND any sins we personally committed before baptism . . .That makes a clear distinction between the sins commited by Adam, and those committed by the individual himself; and it makes clear the purpose of Catholic baptism. And it says that baptism supposedly “washes away the sins inherited from Adam”. Well it doesn’t. It only washes away the sins we have commit ourselves. The sins committed by Adam does not enter into the equation as far as baptism for the remission of our sins is concerned. That is the LDS position.

Again, the “sin” we inherit from Adam is merely the tendency towards sin. It is because of his sin that we have this trait. We are not paying for his individual sins, but we do have original sin.

 

[Allweather]

(Side note to Allweather: Maybe rmcmullen is re-thinking his religious position and returning to his Catholic roots.)

Could be. He’s been awful quiet lately.

 

[Allweather]

Why don’t you let him speak for himself!

zerinus

Nobody is preventing him. Z, why don’t you poke your head into his cubicle and see if he’s there? Seems like he dropped out when polygamy came up. I’ve been wondering whether he is as enthusiastic about the harem as you are.

 

[Allweather]

For example, when a couple want to get married in your church, the priest or vicar marries them “until death do you part”. In other words, he acknowledges that the marriage contract is binding only during the time of mortality, not beyond the veil of death, or in heaven. The LDS Church has the authority to make that contract binding not only in time, or during mortality, but throughout eternity in heaven. In other words, it binds on earth and it will be bound in heaven; and likewise it can loose on earth and it will be loosed in heaven.

zerinus

And not only a couple. But a man and a couple of women, or even five women, or, as in the case of Joseph Smith, somewhere around 48 women, or as in the case of Brigham Young, more than 50 women. That’s a pretty good deal for the man, eh? Maybe not so great for the women, though. Stuff I’ve read recently suggests that depression among Mormon women is widespread, and I’m beginning to understand why, when TBM’s like Zerinus are looking forward to the harem life in the Celestial Kingdom.

Don’t forget, ladies: Mormon polygamy is far from gone. It is merely suspended because of Utah state laws that forbid it. That’s what Zerinus said.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

you’re not going to win many arguments against mormons. their faith is emotional. there is no faith and reason or faith seeking understanding. it’s just blind faith. it’s almost nominalism like in islam which is like mormonism in many ways.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

you’re not going to win many arguments against mormons. their faith is emotional. there is no faith and reason or faith seeking understanding. it’s just blind faith. it’s almost nominalism like in islam which is like mormonism in many ways.

 

[Allweather]

you’re not going to win many arguments against mormons. their faith is emotional. there is no faith and reason or faith seeking understanding. it’s just blind faith. it’s almost nominalism like in islam which is like mormonism in many ways.

True. Better to keep on the matter of Mormon polygamy, especially with Mormon women. I have found this to be a very winning approach. I suppose it would be a lot less effective if the LDS church had completely forsaken it, but they haven’t. They still expect to practice polygamy in the future. And, the main thing that distinguishes the breakaway Mormon sects, like the FLDS group led by the now-incarcerated Warren Jeffs, is polygamy. They believe that the main LDS body went apostate by failing to obey God’s command to practice polygamy. Instead of arguing the works, just read a list of Joseph Smith’s wives, and see what they think. You might not make any headway with Mormon men. After all, Mormon polygamy is a Mormon man’s dream, eh? But Mormon women have an entirely different take on it.

 

[zerinus]

When the Pope makes a declaration of doctrine on faith and morals, such as the Doctrine of Purgatory and Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, we hold that teaching is valid truth both on earth and in heaven. It is indeed a “whatsoever” that the Pope has the right to declare as the successor to Peter, an eternally sealed truth.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. If something that the Pope pronounces is true, then it is true in spite of the Pope, in heaven and on earth. The Pope has no power to “bind it” nor to “unbind it,” either in heaven or on earth. He has merely stated a truth. If I said that 2+2=4, that would be a true statement both in heaven and on earth. I have no power to make it so or unmake it so in either place. To equate the Pope’s true pronouncements (assuming that they are true) with the power to “bind on earth and in heaven” etc, linguistically doesn’t make sense. The pope is capable of making true pronouncements like anybody else can; but he has no mower to make it true or untrue, either in heaven or on earth. If the Pope says that immorality is wrong, he has stated a truth that is already “bound” in heaven and on earth, because God has already made it so. The Pope has not power over “binding” or “loosing” a given statement of truth.

Ok, now I understand the confusion about the term “binding.” Same words, completely different usage.

We think of “binding and loosing” as the priest declaring a sin is bound - unforgiven (a negative action), or as loosed - forgiven. You think of binding as being a spiritual sealing with positive blessings.

Except that Peter’s power to “bind” and “loose” extended to “whatsoever,” not just to the remission of sins. If that definition is correct, it should be extensible to “whatsoever,” which it is not.

Describing your marriage binding as sealing a contract brings another term to mind: “covenant.” The definition I have for “contract” is a conditional agreement which is breakable, but “covenant” is an unconditional everlasting commitment.

That is playing with words. A contract is defined by the terms of the contract. You can make a contract that is valid for a limited duration. You can make a contract that is unlimited—i.e. it is valid for life. Or, if you have the power, make a contract that stretches beyond the veil of death and extends to eternity. The LDS Church possesses to authority to do so—which is what the “keys of the kingdom” given to Peter imply. If you want a reference from LDS scripture here it is:

D&C 132:

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

---

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

You’re still not getting the concept of original sin. It’s not that we are guilty of something because of Adam. . . .
You just don’t get it do you. I was commenting on the quote from the article that Nan had referenced from the Catholic Answers website. According to that quote, man IS guilty because of the sin of Adam; and baptism supposedly washes away that sin. That article correctly states the Catholic position. That has been the traditional justification for infant baptism in Christian theology. According to this doctrine, a new born infant is a sinner not because he has done something wrong, but because Adam did something wrong; and he will go to hell if he dies in infancy unless he is baptized to wash away that sin. That has been the traditional Christian view. They have watered it down in recent times because of its awful implications, and replace “hell” with “limbo” which is not much better. But that is the traditional view—and it is false. It is a great abomination in the sight of God to suppose that little children are sent to hell because of no baptism. “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not” says Jesus, “for of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). Little children are already “in the kingdom of God”. They are in a saved state because of the atonement. The mercies of Christ are extended to them unconditionally. They do not need to be baptized.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

I don’t want to talk about the wrongness of Mormonism. I’ve been there and it’s a horrible and bitter place to be. I’d rather instead talk about the rightness of Christianity.

I’m not sure what kind of Mormon I am to be considered. I still have my LDS membership, I still go to meetings each Sunday and perform an active role…but I believe in Christianity and feel that the Catholic Church fills the role of Christ’s Church that we read about in the Bible.

If there is any reason to fear the Mormons, it’s because they are doing some things better than the Catholics, and one thing in particular: The Mormons have an evangelical program second to none of which I am aware. Whereas the Mormons work very hard (nonstop, in fact) to share their beliefs, I have been trying for a very long time to join the Catholic Church and have not been successful. I can guarantee you that if someone walked into a Mormon church and said, “I’m not a member of your Church, but I have read its history, I’ve read your scriptures and studied your doctrines, and I believe that I ought to be baptized,” that person would be dunked in water by week’s end. I, on the other hand, go to four parishes and tell the priest, “I’ve read and continue to study the Bible in great depth, I’ve read the Didache and other early Christian writings, I’ve studied the theology and history, engaged the apologists, have prayed and feel that God wants me to become a Catholic,” and I’m no closer to my baptism than I was before I even considered the Catholic Church! If the Catholic Church were still obeying Christ’s Great Commission, they would have an evangelical force that would put the Mormon elders to shame. Until then, I’ll settle for a Catholic Church that tries to keep its own and will at least welcome in the people who beg them too.

I guess I’ll tell you my story.

I attended the Catholic Church for a couple of years before finally getting up the courage to talk to a priest. My family is still Mormon and I attend sacrament meeting weekly with them. But when Pope John Paul II died, I realized it was time for me to become Catholic. When I talked to the priest, he told me I needed to begin attending RCIA class every week which is what I did. It was difficult because my family wasn’t supportive, but I did it anyway, every Tuesday night from late August to May. I’d leave the LDS sacrament meeting on Sunday morning and go directly to mass where I was dismissed every Sunday for the catechumen’s class. It took awhile, but it has been worth it. Now I’m able to receive the body and blood of Christ everyday and it’s been a strength to my life. I encourage you to make whatever sacrifice you need to make to become a Catholic. The key is to begin attending RCIA every week at the local parish. If they don’t have a class talk to the priest and if there is still a problem contact your diocese.

 

[majick275]

outstanding! now that is the best way to demonstrate what we have been trying to say.

Those who honestly want to WORSHIP God and read his scriptures and study all that is available to us and truly pray about it as God taught us will be blessed with this type understanding and will receive the grace of Gods sacraments in HIS church!

Those who are dead set on building their tower of babel so that they can just go to heaven themselves, those who listen the serpent telling them that they can be as Gods, those who seek to BE Gods with their own worlds and act only on the basis of their “feelings” that support their wrongful desires will continue to experience the stupor of thought that causes one to ignore facts and just keep repeating the mantra somehow believing that it makes it all true.

The mormon church is no different than the branch davidians or any other group with a charismatic leader claiming revelation and a divine right to control peoples lives right down to taking their wives and daughters (married or not) as his concubines.

repent and be baptized!

 

[christianley]

Could be. He’s been awful quiet lately.

I hope he’s reading Grant Palmer’s book which I mentioned to him. “Insider’s View to Mormon Origins” really does demonstrate the shortcomings of the Book of Mormon. We haven’t heard from him since I mentioned Palmer’s comparison of evangelical Christian sermons in Joseph Smith’s day with sermons in the Book of Mormon. As Palmer mentions, it is highly unlikely that a society existed in ancient America which had a 19th century evangelical Christian view of Jesus.

 

[truthsilence]

I hope he’s reading Grant Palmer’s book which I mentioned to him. “Insider’s View to Mormon Origins” really does demonstrate the shortcomings of the Book of Mormon. We haven’t heard from him since I mentioned Palmer’s comparison of evangelical Christian sermons in Joseph Smith’s day with sermons in the Book of Mormon. As Palmer mentions, it is highly unlikely that a society existed in ancient America which had a 19th century evangelical Christian view of Jesus.

Its possible he’s just catching his breath. I went through that-- over and over and over, for years,. Trying to be the good and faithful Apologetic; than realizing I wasn’'t convinced myself; then spending all my reading time reading only “faith promoting material”; coming back to defend beliefs that I still, deep down, knew were untrue. I defended things like the Book of Abraham. I had no business doing that, as I am as ignorant of Egyptian hieroglyphics as one can possibly be. But, a trip to FARMS, or the Jeff Lindsay website, and I was back on track with all the “facts” I needed to make it all seem realistic again.

Whatever the reason for rmcmullens’ absense, I hope he’s ok.