Discourse with Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew_Larkoski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Calvin:
What are you referring to?

My understanding is that the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran finds show how **accurate **the transmission of the Scriptures were. You seem to be using that evidence to say the Scriptures were **inaccurately **transmitted. There was a full Isaiah scroll found and my understanding was that it was 95% the same as the received text. The “errors” were minor and mostly involved mis-spellings and alternate spellings. There was no disagreement in substance.

So yes the Bible is, technically, “different” than what was found but not by much. It would be like saying British and American are “different” languages.

-C
I actually have no huge problem with the Bible. I believe that it can be interpreted in many ways and thus a sola scriptura paradigm leads to diverse doctrines.

However inerrant is a big word. 95% means 5% error.

There are passages that have subtle impacts upon meaning (making one interpretation stand higher than it did before) that have been left out.

I do not disallow the sola scripturist and the Bible innerantists to redefine what inerrancy is, but I would image pre-DSS there are some who would have rejected the type of differences we see.

Charity, TOm
 
Mormonism doesn’t pass the common sense test.

Mormons think white people are superior to dark-skinned people, it’s ok that joseph smith married close to 30 women of which 11 were married, but it’s not ok to drink caffeine??!!

There is a limit to how smart people can be but no limit in stupidity.
 
40.png
dutch:
TOm,

Why in the world do you believe in testimony of Joseph Smith when it’s a fact that not one trace of reliable evidence has appeared that would support the LDS view of the Book of Abraham as an authentic scripture, while an enormous amount of evidence is available to show that it is a man-made production of the nineteenth century, created by Joseph Smith to support his claim among his people to be a “prophet, seer, and revelator.”

Mormonism is a joke.
Dutch,

You are unaware of the evidences that exist concerning the BOA I assume. If you would like to find some, post them, and comment on them that would be fine with me. But there are arguments that support the BOA.

I have a number of logical reasons that create an environment in which belief can flourish. In truth none of these have anything to do with the method of the coming forth of the BOA. As I see it there are explanations for the problems that the critics have brought up, but few critics who address the explanations or evidences. Here is an interesting article for you by two non-LDS Christian scholars. It is called:

**Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: **
Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?


http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

As I have said before, a Catholic can afford to put forth a positive apologetic and not always harp on negative apologetics; but I do not deny that negative apologetics are part of the repertoire of the apologist. In any case, few involved in negative apologetics do any more than repeat the Boettner list time and time again.

And, your understanding of Mormonism may be a joke, but this is a product of you being misinformed or blind.

Charity, TOm
 
Andrew Larkoski:
“And yes, I am well aware of Masonic parallels. Are you aware for the pagan parallels that CAN be drawn to Catholicism? What say you about pagan parallels expressed in Catholicism? What say you?”

I would say you are exactly right. Christmas trees, Cardinal vestments, church architecture, heck, even the Cross had pagan origins. I can not say for LDS and Masonics, but Catholic parallels to paganism is NOT any matters of faith, morals, or beliefs. These are all firmly based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

That is a wonderful and informed answer in my opinion. I like what Cardinal Newman said,

“The principle of the distinction, by which these observances were pious in Christianity and superstitious in paganism, is implied in such passages of Tertullian, Lactantius, and others, as speak of evil spirits lurking under the pagan statues.”

Newman in my mind does not distinguish that the only Pagan ideas are associated with religious trappings, but I am not positive he would reject that. I would have to reread a lot to find out.

TOm:

There is much more of course to what he says, but the above is a nice little snippet.
Andrew Larkoski:
About Catholics believing that we become gods: I (not 100% sure) think that that refers to being united with God after we pass from this world. By no means are we “deified” or become “rulers” of our own worlds, but we are infinitely closer to God than while on Earth. In this sense, we are holier, in that we are completely and eternally one with Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

TOm:

To be a ruler of ones own world is generally viewed as a possibility for some. I believe that we actually do not know for sure what “Eternal Increase” will involve, but I do not reject this as one interpretation.

When one shares in the power of God (deified, made god) and loves so perfectly that that love grows beyond any comprehension we now have; I see it as somewhat natural to seek a way to share this love with others. This is eternal increase in my mind. If this involves worlds and offspring then ok. If not, then ok.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
dutch:
TOm,

the pope has never taught in an offical manner any errors in faith and morals. Obvously, joe smith has. if he lied about the book of abraham, why in the world would you believe anything he said.
Dutch,

Your statement that I quote demonstrates that you do not know your Catholic history or you expect all to subscribe to your undefined and unmentioned understanding of the term “officail manner.”

It would be better to say that the Pope, from the chair of Peter, concerning faith and morals, has never made any infallible statements that were errors (hence the definition of infallibility).

Oh, and BTW, Joseph Smith was a polygamist.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
dutch:
Mormonism doesn’t pass the common sense test.

Mormons think white people are superior to dark-skinned people, it’s ok that joseph smith married close to 30 women of which 11 were married, but it’s not ok to drink caffeine??!!

There is a limit to how smart people can be but no limit in stupidity.
Dutch,

I read what you write and in truth you are not convincing me that I am stupid. If that is your goal, you will need to employ other means.

Perhaps you are some accomplished poster of whom I am unaware. Your words carry the force of truth based on your past brilliance?

BTW, few LDS believe that dark skinned people are inferior to light skinned people, but there seem to have been those who did. You would be aware that many blame Catholics for anti-Semitism; are you not?

And just so you know it is not against the Word of Wisdom to drink caffeine. I would hate for your misunderstanding to confuse others.

Charity, TOm
 
TOm,

I happen to be dark-skinned. I know your religion teaches that I’ve been cursed because of my dark skin. Joseph Smith besides being a liar was a racist. Calling Joseph Smith a polygamist is an understatement -he had 27 wives!!! But I guess that’s ok as long as you’re racist, and an adulterer and you don’t drink caffeine.

Here is a link about that forgery of the book of abraham: carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm

By the way, I use the book of Mormon to blow my nose. That’s about all it is good for.
 
40.png
dutch:
TOm,

I happen to be dark-skinned. I know your religion teaches that I’ve been cursed because of my dark skin. Joseph Smith besides being a liar was a racist. Calling Joseph Smith a polygamist is an understatement -he had 27 wives!!! But I guess that’s ok as long as you’re racist, and an adulterer and you don’t drink caffeine.

Here is a link about that forgery of the book of abraham: carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm

By the way, I use the book of Mormon to blow my nose. That’s about all it is good for.
You as a dark skinned individual have no more right to malign the beliefs of others than does one who may have never been maltreated as a result of prejudice.

It is sad to me that those wronged by prejudice frequently respond by demonstrating the same traits that so offended them. In my opinion your posts here do just that.

I am sorry that you feel that the CoJCoLDS has somehow has participated in prejudice in the past. You are likely misinformed when you call Joseph Smith a racist, but certainly there have been racist LDS. The CoJCoLDS does not teach anything that could be labeled racist any longer. That some once did I apologize for. I am not proud of this.

That you blow your nose on the BOM and that you would say this to me, says much more about you than it does about the BOM.

And surely you know that your chosen source of truth CARM also has an extensive anti-Catholic section. Perhaps you should read what they say about Catholicism and decide if you think it likely that they change from possessing of the wrong spirit to fine and upstanding when they cease to comment on your church.

Again, I am sorry if you feel that the CoJCoLDS has participated in prejudice against dark skinned people, a group to which you claim to belong. My purpose here is to invite others to better understand the CoJCoLDS (while I perhaps learn some new things about the Catholic Church). To you I suggest that the real and perceived prejudice that you see in the CoJCoLDS may be hurting you more because you let it. To say to a member of the CoJCoLDS that you blow your nose on the BOM is evidence of either profound pain or uncouth behavior. I will pray for you.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
As I see it there are explanations for the problems that the critics have brought up, but few critics who address the explanations or evidences. Here is an interesting article for you by two non-LDS Christian scholars. It is called:

***Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: *****
****Losing the **Battle and Not Knowing It?

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html
What is this link supposed to prove?

Mosser and Owen gave that speech and then went out and wrote a new book “debunking” the new Mormon scholarship (booksamillion.com/ncom/books?pid=0310231949&ad=YHSBKS).

… and?

-C
 
40.png
Calvin:
What is this link supposed to prove?

Mosser and Owen gave that speech and then went out and wrote a new book “debunking” the new Mormon scholarship (booksamillion.com/ncom/books?pid=0310231949&ad=YHSBKS).

… and?

-C
Mosser and Owen have tried to interact with LDS scholarship and LDS have acknowledge their words with appreciation and solid responses. If we are to utilize logic and reason to point our faith this is the model we must follow. Those who post like some of the people on the internet do not even try. Mosser and Owen also acknowledged that there was a great deal of work to be done some of which they were not properly educated to do.

Charity, TOm
 
Hi Tom,

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. The following is a continuation of our discussion on Bahai vs. Mormon evidences:

Fulfillment of prophecy basically comes under two heading in Bahai thought: first, the fulfillment of Fulfilled OT, NT, Quranic and Hadith prophecies concerning the advent of the Bab and Baha’u’llah, and Abdu’l-Baha; and second, the fulfillment of prophecies made by the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

Now, for the first set of prophecies. Various Christian commentators have identified over 300 OT prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ at his advent. Various Bahai authors have identified over 1,800 Biblical prophecies that were fulfilled by the advents of the Bab and Baha’u’llah (plus numerous Quranic and Hadith prophecies).

The first set of prophecies to be examined are “time” prophecies. In the Bible, specific “time” prophecies are mentioned; examples include the 70 weeks, 1260 days[lit. “a time, times, and half a time”; “forty and two months”; “thousand two hundred and threescore days”], 1290 days, 1335 days, 2,300 days. The principle of applying “a year for day” when interpreting “time” prophecies has been used by dozens of Jewish and Christian commentators. Christian commentators have consistently applied the “a year for day” to the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel (7x69[7 +62] = 483 days = 490 years) and see a literal fulfillment for the date of Jesus Christ’s advent (457BC + 483 = AD 27AD). Starting in the late 18th century, and early 19th century, literally dozens of Christian commentators began using the “a year for day” principle for the 2,300 days of Daniel and applying them to the second advent of Jesus Christ (between 1798 and 1842 Advent scholar, Leroy Edwin Froom lists 88 such commentators! - see The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 4:404, 405). Starting with the 457BC date they arrived at 1843/1844 as the date for the second coming (1844 being the more accurate for the transition 1 BC to 1 AD did not originally include a zero). Millions of Christians worldwide were expecting Christ to return in 1844. Bahai’s believe that this was literally fulfilled by the advent of the Bab.

Due to posting limits, I suggest you go to the following site:

[bahai-education.org/](http://www.bahai-education.org/)

Once there, under “software” in the upper left hand corner of the page, click on “Ocean – Library Software” and follow the instructions.

Once downloaded, open up the program and click “Bahai”, then “Bahai Studies”, then “William Sears” and finally “Thief in the Night”. The entire book is a good read, but “Part One” pertains to the topic at hand.

Grace and peace,

Aug
 
Why did Joseph Smith have at least 27 wives and why were 11 of them married?
 
Because at the time, it was an accepted LDS doctrine (but that doesn’t mean it should be right in the eyes of non-LDS).

I don’t know about the 11 already married women, though. Where did you get this information?

Everything that I’ve read from the Salt Lake City LDS shows that polygamy is no longer an acceptable practice. The same can not be said to be true about the Fundamental LDS which has no ties to Salt Lake City.
 
Where did you get this information?
wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

My point of asking that question is to show there is no reason other than he’s crazy. The best the Mormons can do is say “because it was revealed to him”. This doesn’t past the common sense test and I can’t understand why anyone would listen to him.
 
dutch said:
wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

My point of asking that question is to show there is no reason other than he’s crazy. The best the Mormons can do is say “because it was revealed to him”. This doesn’t past the common sense test and I can’t understand why anyone would listen to him.

Yeah but David had multiple wives and he wrote a good chunk of the Psalms and a good chunk of the OT was about him. All of the Patriarchs had multiple wives. Polygamy is not, per se, a sign of craziness.

-C
 
You’re taking things completely out of context. If I decide to stone someone for committing adultery, I’d be considered crazy. I couldn’t justify because it was done in the old testament. Plus, 11 of the wives were married. Who would want to do that other than someone crazy or perverted? It was so contrary to the social norms of the time that he couldn’t be sane.
 
40.png
Katholikos:
If the “powers of death” (RSV), or "the gates of hell’ (KJV) prevailed against the Church that Christ founded, Christianity is a sham. That would mean that (1) Jesus is not God, and therefore He is incapable of preserving the Church He established for the salvation of the world; or, (2) Jesus was God, but he was only kidding when He said that, and the joke’s on us.
It’s worse than that. The Book of Mormon tells us that Jesus established His Church among the Nephites and Lamanites on the American continent soon after His resurrection. But that Church fell quickly into total apostacy as well and was completely wiped out (the “powers of death” apparently prevailed against it). So the Mormon Jesus is a two-time loser.
Paul
 
Paul,

How would you answer the claim that the early Church, priesthood, and the authority was safely taken back to heaven so that when the apostasy happened, hell did not prevail? That was the answer given to me by missionaries.
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
It’s worse than that. The Book of Mormon tells us that Jesus established His Church among the Nephites and Lamanites on the American continent soon after His resurrection. But that Church fell quickly into total apostacy as well and was completely wiped out (the “powers of death” apparently prevailed against it). So the Mormon Jesus is a two-time loser.
Paul
By this logic I could add a third loss to the Jesus column. A bunch of men killed him. Sure he rose again, but he was killed, conquered, …

You will respond that this was foreordained. It was part of the plan. I say the same of the apostasy.

Charity, TOm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top