Evidence for or against "The Book Of Mormon".

[BJRumph]

Sorry Gottle; that is part of the “old school” apologetic of the mormon church. The new school states the the “Great and Abominable Church” is not specifically the RCC, but any church that is built on the pridefulness and hubris (not that I have ever heard a mormon use the word hubris) of its members.

Or, in the case of WP, the members are not responsible for the actions of the leaders of “Rome” (the historical one with all the evil-leaders, not the modern one with good, if still misguided, ones), and therefore are exempt from being abominable themselves (indeed, to some they are the models of virtue, for they follow their preisthood leaders without question, even into the gate of Hell, therefore God will bless them for their obediance, if not their theological soundness.)

Even the Creeds, which in the old-school, were “abominable in my (the Lord’s) sight” according to JS’s official, canonized, report (see First Vision in the JS History section of the PoGP), are no longer abominable, as God was somehow referring to something else when he said that under the new school on mormonism.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BJRumph:

Sorry Gottle; that is part of the “old school” apologetic of the mormon church.

Ahhhh…how disappointing TY very much for telling us this. So much for the “I like to be despised” feeling ​

How “official” is this ? Officially - I think - the SDAs are not agin the CC; but a lot of SDAs are. Of course, officially the CC is very friendly with other Christians - not that you would always know this from how we ordinary Catholics behave to them ##

The new school states the the “Great and Abominable Church” is not specifically the RCC, but any church that is built on the pridefulness and hubris (not that I have ever heard a mormon use the word hubris) of its members.

Or, in the case of WP, the members are not responsible for the actions of the leaders of “Rome” (the historical one with all the evil-leaders, not the modern one with good, if still misguided, ones), and therefore are exempt from being abominable themselves (indeed, to some they are the models of virtue, for they follow their preisthood leaders without question, even into the gate of Hell, therefore God will bless them for their obediance, if not their theological soundness.)

Even the Creeds, which in the old-school, were “abominable in my (the Lord’s) sight” according to JS’s official, canonized, report (see First Vision in the JS History section of the PoGP), are no longer abominable, as God was somehow referring to something else when he said that under the new school on mormonism.

 

[BJRumph]

Sorry, too new;

SDA?

 

[BJRumph]

Doh! what you were saying, IWONDER, finally kicked in.

Frankly, the only mormon that I have seen post here that poses any “danger” is TOm. He is very articulate, sincere, and holds veiws on mormonism that make it seem quite compatible with the Christian worldveiw.

Aside from that, it does add in a bit more contention than perhaps desired, but I think any of the forums that discuss truly different religions will have that issue, especially when emotional response is a large factor in the religion’s practice. YKW will get his kicks where he can, I guess.

 

[iwonder]

BJRumph:

Doh! what you were saying, IWONDER, finally kicked in.

Frankly, the only mormon that I have seen post here that poses any “danger” is TOm. He is very articulate, sincere, and holds veiws on mormonism that make it seem quite compatible with the Christian worldveiw.

Aside from that, it does add in a bit more contention than perhaps desired, but I think any of the forums that discuss truly different religions will have that issue, especially when emotional response is a large factor in the religion’s practice. YKW will get his kicks where he can, I guess.

The danger BJRumph is not what the mormons are saying or not saying. And it is not just on the Mormon thread, but elsewhere. The danger lies in the number of Catholics who are willing to concede “truth” points to other religions. If once we claim and believe the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth and cannot be in error, as it is the Body of Christ with He at the head, it is ridiculous then to be conceding “truth” points. Why? Because fruit trees with the most gorgeous leaves and fruit are doomed to destruction if they have even one root with incurable disease. But what happens is Catholics get confronted by something some very human priest or Pope or Catholic did historically that was wrong and somehow this leads to “charitable” debate about the truth of the Church. And then there is this idea that charity means that we have to somehow acknowledge that other religions have validity. When the fact is and we all very well know it, that one needs to not fight the “fullness” of truth but accept it in it’s fullness. It really does not matter if Joseph Smith had good points, right ideas or not. To consider him in comparison to the Church is ridiculous simply because if he can be found to be in violent error on even one single item of doctrinal truth then his entire premise is faulty. Period. Why? Because you can’t grow good food in bad soil. So until Catholics finally have no doubts that the fullness resides within the Church, we will continue to be very PC with the others. We also have endless numbers of new self proclaimed priests and prophets arising all waiting to help us stroll away from the Church. And people will go, all the while being angry with their Catholic brothers and sisters for not being more charitable to their new found “truth explainer.”

 

[BJ_Colbert]

## On some occasions - yes, there have been apologies - but what of it ? In a religion based on the grace of Christ, it is immaterial to our own actions how others behave: whether they apologise when they ought to - or not. A Christian’s behaviour is not dependent on the good behaviour of other Christians ##

GoG
I was replying to Jerusha and we pretty much settled it. She thought Mormons should apologize to the the American Indians for settling the West and some of the injustices done to Indians by Mormons. She said the Catholic Church was in the process of making ammends to the American Indian for the injustices they inflicted in settling America, and also the US government was making ammends. She was angry at me, because she said the Mormons had not even tried, and pointed out some battles etc. I was not aware of, which I read and pointed out to her that throughout the history of the world people have settled, conquered new lands and killed other people and continue to do so, but hardly ever apologize hundreds or thousands of years later.
Jerusha and I are fine now, I hope. But, that was the context of the post. We have since then had some very wonderful exchanges and she is a very caring and kind person. BJ

 

[iwonder]

## If the CC is not the “great and abominable church” mentioned in the BoM - what is ?

I thought the CC was the eeeeevil one - except in the view of the JWs, who don’t like *any *of the Churches at all, or the UN (though that may be a different beast - there are far too many beasts in Revelation; it’s very hard to keep track at times) ##

Michael: I believe that what they are saying here is not that the Catholic Church is not the “great and abominable church” but that us individual Catholics are not to blame.??? Maybe that is what they are saying. It’s very hard to follow the logic. But I’m afraid trying to follow Mormon threads while baking four hundred loaves of bread makes me not always tuned in to the discussion.If I am this confused by Mormonism by just taking quick looks at the threads while at work , imagine how confused I would be if I spent a great deal of time at it!!!

 

[BJ_Colbert]

iwonder:

Michael: I believe that what they are saying here is not that the Catholic Church is not the “great and abominable church” but that us individual Catholics are not to blame.??? Maybe that is what they are saying. It’s very hard to follow the logic. But I’m afraid trying to follow Mormon threads while baking four hundred loaves of bread makes me not always tuned in to the discussion.If I am this confused by Mormonism by just taking quick looks at the threads while at work , imagine how confused I would be if I spent a great deal of time at it!!!

No, iwonder
The LDS church does not think the Catholic Church is the great and abominable church, or the beast. I think some Catholics just like to find things in anti-lit to make it sound like that, which they think gives them ammunition and permission to feel persecuted, and therefore strike back with the same kind of rhetoric.
Also, since the Holy Spirit is not always guiding the thoughts of all people, there are many unkind and misguided statements, even here on this forum. There were people who mis-understood the bible in earlier days. They were ignorant and uninformed and put their own translations on bible passages. Which people who want to feel hated, and persecuted obsess and whine about.
Ha, sorry, I could not resist, as some of the posts from Catholics have called the Mormons whiners. I think it must be a very kind and Christian word, since you, who are the finest and most perfect Christian of all(next to Jesus Christ) have used that word and others even more (kind) to describe Mormons.
Have a great day and happy baking to you… BJ

 

[TOmNossor]

My favorite article on the “Great and Abominable” passage in the BOM is by Mike Ash.

It is located here:

http://www.mormonfortress.com/ga1.html

There is no doubt that LDS leaders have called the Catholic Church the “Great and Abominable” church. In doing this they have exhibited their ability to be influenced by the prevailing culture in the United States. The Protestant comments that say the same thing (and worse) are certainly more virulent and voluminous.

On my threat to the Catholic Church, oh my:

I have claimed (and I still believe it is true) that I am here asking that the CoJCoLDS gets a fair shake. I have decided that a convinced Catholic does not need to investigate the CoJCoLDS. I would even go so far as to suggest that a convinced Catholic has less of a need to investigate the CoJCoLDS than does a convinced LDS need to investigate the Catholic Church. (But a LDS with no call to investigate the Catholic Church in my mind is fine if they do not). You were first, and we cannot be true unless you are apostate. But, I believe the final leap will be a leap of faith. Study and logic will carry you so far and then you must have faith. Many Catholics seem to think that “to be deep in history is to” be Catholic. I do not agree. Many intelligent LDS think that “to be deep in history is to” be a LDS. I do not agree. For me the CoJCoLDS make a more convincing position before the final leap of faith, but for some more learned and intelligent than me the Catholic Church has the more convincing position.

Among strong LDS I try to challenge errant ideas. When the local Temple President said that the succession of Peter was a mess and it is obvious that the Catholic Church could not be true, I reminded him that it was not immediately apparent who the successor of Joseph Smith should be (thanks to a Catholic for reminding me of that about 2 years ago).

When someone here puts forward something ridiculous like the “Clement test,” I also try to inform them how their thinking decimates that Catholic Church at least as fast as the CoJCoLDS.

Some LDS and some Catholics listen. Some LDS and some Catholics do not.

More on threats:

Down the street a wonderful man who was in my ward became Catholic. Before this I had been assigned to visit him because his home teachers were having difficulty getting to him. It was not my place to overwhelm him with reasons the Catholic Church is not true. Be they reasons of the Boettner variety or reasons that someone like Pelikan might mention. The deed was done, his mind was made, and his family will probably be blessed in some ways by this. As a LDS I believe I have a lot of room to allow for people to follow the dictates of their heart. Had he asked me my thoughts, he would have gotten a lot; but I did not thrust them upon him.

This is how I as a LDS deal with Catholics. Were I a Catholic I would behave a bit differently. I would not be obnoxious and in my heart I would know that I cannot KNOW who is “outside the Catholic Church.” I would have not just a little, but tremendous hope for all sincere believers be they LDS, JWs, Muslims, Bahai, or just confused Protestants (as long as they do not embrace –in word and deed- easy-believism).

But I would make it clear to such folks (whenever a slight opportunity arose) that “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” I would explain that I cannot judge their Catholicity, but that the absence of visible alignment with the Catholic Church was a very precarious position. To deny oneself of supernatural grace through Baptism and Catholic communion, to deny oneself of the real presence in the Eucharist, and to deny oneself the reception of Grace through all the sacraments; is to place a huge barrier between yourself and God. Whether you my faithful non-Catholic brother are following Christ with true and complete faith such that this barrier can be surmounted, I would not know; but why do you want to risk it. Come home!

At least that is what I think I would say were I Catholic, but I would also not accuse all Protestants of easy-believism, all LDS of hyper-pelagianism, all Moslems of infidel-icide, or …. If we choose to play in the realm of comparative religion we owe it to our Lord that we do it in a Christian way. Compare best to best. Let those we dialog with speak for themselves in every aspect and preferentially in describing their community. To say, “let me tell you what you believe and why it is wrong,” is common and not productive.

Charity, TOm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BJRumph:

Sorry, too new;

SDA?

Seventh Day Adventist(s) ​

 

[gryskull]

wademann:

Wasn’t Jesus arrested? Is that your irrefutable evidence? I see these same old tired stories get thrown out, that have already been refuted, maybe not to your satisfaction, but to a few million mormons satisfaction. This is not irrefutable. Joseph Smith had many enemies in which satan could use to do his bidding.

Yes, Jesus was arrested. But HE was arrested for telling the truth. Big difference when it comes to JS’s situation. He got arrested for leading people on bogus treasure hunts using a seer-stone. The link that I posted earlier would show you the evidence.
BJ:

You dismiss the testimony of 11 witnesses who actually handled the plates and testified of such, even after some of them left the church.

Another thing that I’m wondering, and maybe you can give me a logical explanation, is about the 11 witnesses. If they knew in their hearts that JS was a true prophet then why would they leave him? This is quite contrary to the actions of the early christians. They would rather die, in however painful way, rather than denying our Blessed Lord.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

gryskull:

Yes, Jesus was arrested. But HE was arrested for telling the truth. Big difference when it comes to JS’s situation. He got arrested for leading people on bogus treasure hunts using a seer-stone. The link that I posted earlier would show you the evidence.

Another thing that I’m wondering, and maybe you can give me a logical explanation, is about the 11 witnesses. If they knew in their hearts that JS was a true prophet then why would they leave him? This is quite contrary to the actions of the early christians. They would rather die, in however painful way, rather than denying our Blessed Lord.

Not all Christians died in Biblical times, and not all of the Apostles were strong and stood next to Christ in his trial. They hung back and one even turned him in.
The witnesses were of varying degrees of strength in times when Joseph was tarred and feathered at one time, and later murdered with his brother in Carthage jail, they could not stand up to those trials, it was easier to go back to the comforts of a more peaceful existence. Even now it is not easy being a member of the CoJCoLDS, we try to follow the commandments, and in this day and age it is getting more and more difficult. Only the strongest will be able to stay on task.
How many of us would be able to leave our homes and land, or have our families killed because of our belief in Jesus Christ? How many of us now give our wealth to the church and trust in God to care for us? It was the same then, they wilted under the test. BUT, they never, not one of them ever, refuted the Book of Mormon. They had seen the plates, handled them and testified of such. They knew God knew they had seen them and they could not deny it, even if they left the church. They testified of the truth of the Book of Mormon even upon their deathbeds.
BJ

 

[wademann]

iwonder:

In answer to your question, no, I don’t think the LDS religion has any truth. Simple enough?

Have you read the BOM? Have you seen www.whyprophets.com ? If you say there is no truth, then either you are closed minded and ignorant, or bigoted.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

wademann:

Have you read the BOM? Have you seen www.whyprophets.com ? If you say there is no truth, then either you are closed minded and ignorant, or bigoted.

Wademann, have you read the post by iwonder to tom nosser, she explains her experience with all religions and she seems to have a lot of good and bad experiences over a one year test of other religions. She was also raised by a Mormon family for a while apparently.
It is a good post and explains a lot. Read it. The www.whyprophets.com is interesting information and was originally posted by a Catholic in this forum, but has since had several points given by other posters that make it seem like what the Catholics say about Mormons. It is a bit of truth mixed in with a bit of untruth and presented as all truth. Be Careful with that one. Good for your information, but not good to point out to Catholics as that is the same as them pointing out books like "Under the Banner of Heaven"as the truth about Mormons, although the website has a lot more truth than the books they read about Mormons and post as the truth in this forum. Just my opinion…BJ

 

[iwonder]

wademann:

Have you read the BOM? Have you seen www.whyprophets.com ? If you say there is no truth, then either you are closed minded and ignorant, or bigoted.

Yes, I have seen whyprophets.com. Would you like me to begin quoting it here on Catholic Forum for the rest to see just how open minded and non bigoted it is? Or do you think there is any possibility it will fail that test? Tell me now, because in my next post, that is exactly what I’m going to do.
How the Catholic people themselves are not responsible for their Chruch being the “mouth of the—Babylon” and so on. Because you have the greatest respect for the Roman Catholic Church you don’t blame it for being a “”—"" thing.
No Wademann, I don’t think I’m close minded, ignorant, and bigoted. I think rather that I have enormous patience to continue to take yours and B.J.'s insults and references to profoundly disgusting websites.
A Rosary for the both of you.

 

[iwonder]

wademann:

Have you read the BOM? Have you seen www.whyprophets.com ? If you say there is no truth, then either you are closed minded and ignorant, or bigoted.

The other problem with whyprophets.com is that it’s foundations are based on faslehood. Therefore, if the foundations are false, the whole thing is false. Simple. Another alternative to your suggestions is that I am correct.

 

[wademann]

iwonder:

Yes, I have seen whyprophets.com. Would you like me to begin quoting it here on Catholic Forum for the rest to see just how open minded and non bigoted it is? Or do you think there is any possibility it will fail that test? Tell me now, because in my next post, that is exactly what I’m going to do.
How the Catholic people themselves are not responsible for their Chruch being the “mouth of the—Babylon” and so on. Because you have the greatest respect for the Roman Catholic Church you don’t blame it for being a “”—"" thing.
No Wademann, I don’t think I’m close minded, ignorant, and bigoted. I think rather that I have enormous patience to continue to take yours and B.J.'s insults and references to profoundly disgusting websites.
A Rosary for the both of you.

Have you read the BOM?

 

[iwonder]

wademann:

Have you read the BOM?

Oh, if you look back at my previous posts, you will see the answer is yes. At least, I tried over and over again. I was after all in a Mormon foster home, complete with family home evenings every Wednesday.
Lovely people, until it came to religion. Then all of this stuff, just like on your favorite website whyprophet.com and I quote " the Church is mouth of the beast" etc. etc.
I understand better, now that you have reminded me what kind of absolute trash you read on your own websites, why you and B.J. act the way you do. I may forgive you, but I am only me. But the fundamental attitude toward the Catholic Church, your obsession with the number 666, presents a lack of goodness or at least not goodness in it’s fullness. It’s really not your fault. I understand that.
But actually that old saying you are what you eat has some truth and if you insist on filling yourselves up with the nonsense on whyprophet.com, well, that’s up to you. And your responsibility, fault or not.

 

[TNT]

The BOM has a long road to climb to meet authentic inspiration.
The Book of Abraham has a near impossible one. The evidence against it is depressing.

 

[iwonder]

TNT:

The BOM has a long road to climb to meet authentic inspiration.
The Book of Abraham has a near impossible one. The evidence against it is depressing.

Oh, TNT, I really needed that. Thanks.