Ex-Mormon Missionaries

[rod_of_iron]

cestusdei:

Thanks for finally answering. So you reject the church that gave you the bom.

Not at all. No church brought forth the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon came forth first, and then Jesus restored His church through Joseph Smith. I still belong to that church which was restored in 1830.

cestusdei:

Then you reject the restored restored church. Now you are a restored restored restored church of yourself? Even if you do find a restored restored restored restored church if it disagrees with you then you will leave. No doubt to join the restored restored restored restored restored church. Yep that is what God intended, right?

The church was restored only once in the last 200 years. It was restored in 1830. But as long as God will allow humans their free agency to choose, apostasies are possible. But these apostasies do not frustrate the will or plans of God. By apostatizing, a group separates itself from the true church of Jesus Christ. If an apostasy is significant, the members of the church that are not part of the apostatized group must reorganize. The only reason the church would need to be restored again is if all the members of the true church have apostatized. But God promised in modern day revelation that He has restored His church for the last time before the coming of Jesus the Christ. I still belong to the “restored” church (only once restored since 1830).

cestusdei:

Maybe you should reconsider Smith’s claims completely.

In the past, I have considered and reconsidered Smith’s claims, and each time I do, I am brought back to the same conclusion. This conclusion is that Smith was instrumental in the restoration of the church of Jesus Christ in the modern era and that He was a true prophet of God. Should I continue to question God believing that eventually He will give me the answers that you want me to receive? If I were to continue to reject God’s answers to me, it would not be too long before He would allow me to believe whatever I want to believe. I choose to believe the very truth, not what man may believe is true.

cestusdei:

You reject his own words about polygamy anyway.

His own words? You keep claiming that Smith spoke in favor of polygamy, but yet, I have not seen you provide these alleged words yet. Where are these words you speak of?

cestusdei:

Why not look at the only church that goes back to the actual time of Jesus. The Catholic Church.

I have not seen proof that the Catholic church goes all the way back to Jesus. Why should I join a church that I believe is false?

 

[cestusdei]

rod,

There are a variety of mormon denominations. All claim to be the restored church. Some are reorganized or even reorganized reorganized churches. You individually decide which one is right. So in fact you don’t really believe in Smith or the BOM, but in yourself. And if the RLDS don’t go your way you join or found another “true” “restored” church.

I have good news for you. We don’t need a restored church. We have the one founded by Jesus. In 107 AD Ignatius of Antioch, an early bishop and martyr, said “where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church”. I invite you to check out the history of the Church from the actually sources ie. the Fathers. You will find the early Christians were not mormons. In fact mormons are not Christians at all. Smith lied, repeated. He was not a prophet. I prayed about it and God told me that he was false. Also I have read the BOM and received the same answer. Intellectually I found mormonism to be indefensible. As we have pointed out repeatedly there is not one iota of evidence and tons of contrary evidence that show the BOM is false. I testify to you that Jesus founded the Catholic Church as the one true Church and that John Paul II is the Vicar of Christ and that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. Amen.

 

[flameburns623]

I’m still not certain what sort of ‘evidence’ Rod of Iron would accept as persuasive, since he appears to reject ordinary standards of evidence accepted by scholars in historical, anthropological, literary, and/or other fields which others accept. I would note that in my previous post the Community of Christ (RLDS) member whom I cited acknowledged that even Joseph Smith’s own son (Joseph Smith III) appears to have accepted that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and this would have been long before the splits in the RLDS between the conservatives (what Rod calls the ‘Restoration Saints’) and the liberals in the RLDS.

Likewise, Rod spent a great deal of effort defending the Book of Abraham, even though the RLDS/CofC has never accepted it as ‘inspired’ anyhow. Perhaps the RLDS Restorationists lend these works more credence than other RLDS, but even so Rod doesn’t show himself to be especially knowledgeable of Mormon apologetics vis’a’vis the Book of Abraham. (I am using the word ‘Mormon’ here in it’s broadest possible sense–to describe any member of any group which accepts the Book of Mormon as scriptural authority in some fashion, and/or which accepts the prophethood of Joseph Smith Jr. in any measure).

Rod’s responses to points raised seem to be a reactionary rejection of anything which might cast negative light on the BofM and/or on Joseph Smith, without a whole lot of reading or deep reflection upon how unpersuasive his answers seem. From what I can tell, Rod is largely self-taught about these matters, and simply has no training in how to conduct a rigourous, disciplined inquiry. There is nothing WRONG with this, per se, but it cripples any discussion we engage him in: there is no common and agreed upon prior standard for how one arrives at truth. We don’t have to use the Popperian standard of ‘falsification’ which someone cited earlier, although it is probably the one most folks are most familiar with. (Karl Popper, for those who don’t know, coined the idea that science doesn’t so much ‘prove’ a thing is true as establish rules whereby a thing can be proven false: ‘truth’ is that which cannot be finally falsified). Since we have no mutually-accepted rules by which we can arrive at truth, this discussion seems doomed to a never-ending mery-go-round of arguments going nowhere.

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

I’m still not certain what sort of ‘evidence’ Rod of Iron would accept as persuasive, since he appears to reject ordinary standards of evidence accepted by scholars in historical, anthropological, literary, and/or other fields which others accept.

And what would these standards be? You make all these claims about different types of evidence that you can present to me. But then, you fail to produce them. I can only assume that you are not serious about the evidence you claim you can present. I am growing tired of these claims of evidence you say you have but never present when asked about it. Ho-hum!

flameburns623:

I would note that in my previous post the Community of Christ (RLDS) member whom I cited acknowledged that even Joseph Smith’s own son (Joseph Smith III) appears to have accepted that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and this would have been long before the splits in the RLDS between the conservatives (what Rod calls the ‘Restoration Saints’) and the liberals in the RLDS.

Ah, yes. A member of the Community of Christ. That church, now that it has abandoned many of the beliefs it once held, does not know what it believes anymore. It is constantly changing what it believes. Pretty soon, that church will accept homosexuality without question. That church would no longer have any idea what to say about Joseph Smith, or his son Joseph Smith III. I am not impressed by this member of the Community of Christ, no matter who he or she is.

flameburns623:

Likewise, Rod spent a great deal of effort defending the Book of Abraham, even though the RLDS/CofC has never accepted it as ‘inspired’ anyhow.

**
Do you purposely try to misrepresent me or aren’t you even reading what I have written?** To say that I believe in the Book of Mormon or that I have “spent a great deal of effort defending the Book of Abraham” is a complete falsehood. Why would you claim something about me that is not true?

flameburns623:

Perhaps the RLDS Restorationists lend these works more credence than other RLDS, but even so Rod doesn’t show himself to be especially knowledgeable of Mormon apologetics vis’a’vis the Book of Abraham.

Why would I try to use Mormon apologetics for a book that I believe is not inspired, sacred scripture? If you cannot represent me correctly, how can we have a serious discussion?
(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

Rod’s responses to points raised seem to be a reactionary rejection of anything which might cast negative light on the BofM and/or on Joseph Smith, without a whole lot of reading or deep reflection upon how unpersuasive his answers seem.

Perhaps, my answers are not too persuasive to you, because you have already made up your mind what you believe the truth really is. Do you honestly believe that claiming you have evidence and then failing to present that evidence is very persuasive at all? Hardly! Do you expect me to accept every negative thing said about the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith without evidence to discredit either of them?

flameburns623:

From what I can tell, Rod is largely self-taught about these matters, and simply has no training in how to conduct a rigourous, disciplined inquiry. There is nothing WRONG with this, per se, but it cripples any discussion we engage him in: there is no common and agreed upon prior standard for how one arrives at truth.

Oh? Well pardon me for crippling you so badly. Not everyone can be as skilled as you are in this type of “rigorous, disciplined inquiry.” (pausing to chuckle)

flameburns623:

Since we have no mutually-accepted rules by which we can arrive at truth, this discussion seems doomed to a never-ending mery-go-round of arguments going nowhere.

Okay, what are the rules you want to accept? Since you cannot present the evidence you claim exists, perhaps you can suggest some rules for furthering this discussion.

 

[boppysbud]

Is this one of your indisputable “true facts” Rod that the Catholic Church has named the Pope “Vicarius Filii Dei”?

Unfortunately for you the Catholic church has never called the Pope by this title, (we do call the Pope Vicarius Petros) it was dreamed up by the Seventh Day Adventest sect, who are extremely anti-catholic, they also call the Pope and the church the “whore of Babylon” and worship on Sunday the “sign of the beast”.

The SDAs also claim that the triple Papal Tiara is engraved with that title “Vicarius Filii Dei” which is another lie, it never was. Not only that but the last Pope to actually wear the triple tiara was John the V VIIIrd, nearly thirty years ago.

What day do you worship on? (by yourself I assume) Do you bear the “sign of the beast” yourself?

If these lies are examples of your True facts" no thank you.

 

[darcee]

ROI
My big accusation of you.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a serious debate with you because you are your own standard of truth.

Your faith in Joseph Smith means that you will take his statements and the BoM at face value yet you expect others to offer completely incontrovertible factual proofs for anything which contradicts the teachings of Joseph Smith. You have all but admitted that you personally witnessing the events in question is the only standard of proof that you will accept.
Your standard for believing truths contrary to what you want to belive is your first hand witnessing those truths – first hand positive proof. No matter how well supported by history, logic, theology or anthropology the doctrine or teaching is-- you won’t accept it unless you’ve seen it…

While your standard for the BoM and JS is that they can not be proven to be other then what they claim. No matter how unlikely that claim is or how contrary to history, logic, theology or anthropology – you will accept it unless someone can show you absolutely that they are false… again requiring your first hand witness.

Your grasp of logic and rhetoric is a bit shaky. Even when logical fallacies in your arguments are pointed out to you – you persist in them to the point of absurdity… remember I am the Empress of Cascadia.

I think it is telling that you have broken away from your faith what is it? twice? because they have strayed from what you have determined to be the truth.

But all in all I think you are a nice guy, I wonder that you have persisted in this for so long and I admire your stick-to-it-ness.

:tiphat:

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

ROI
My big accusation of you.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a serious debate with you because you are your own standard of truth.

Your faith in Joseph Smith means that you will take his statements and the BoM at face value yet you expect others to offer completely incontrovertible factual proofs for anything which contradicts the teachings of Joseph Smith. You have all but admitted that you personally witnessing the events in question is the only standard of proof that you will accept.
Your standard for believing truths contrary to what you want to belive is your first hand witnessing those truths – first hand positive proof. No matter how well supported by history, logic, theology or anthropology the doctrine or teaching is-- you won’t accept it unless you’ve seen it…

You are confusing faith and knowledge. Faith and knowledge are opposites of each others. ** Faith** is the evidence of things not seen. Knowledge is the evidence of things that are seen. I have stated what I believe to be true. Since belief does not require definite proof, I do not have to provide evidence to prove that something is absolutely true. Faith is my evidence. If Catholics claimed that they only believed the things that they profess are true, I would not ask for definite proof that these things are true. But instead, Catholics claim that they know these things are true. When someone claims they know something is true, they should expect to be asked to provide evidence of that knowledge. If I said that I know the claims that Joseph Smith made and that the Book of Mormon makes are true, I would surely expect others to ask me to prove what I know to be true. Since I would know it, proving it should not be much trouble at all. Likewise, if members of the Catholic church claim that they know certain things are true, they should easily be able to show evidence of this knowledge.

True knowledge requires witnessing something firsthand. Any other testimony would be hearsay. Faith, on the other hand, does not require a firsthand witness. Faith is what keeps us believing in something that we do not know is true. I believe what Joseph Smith claimed and what the Book of Mormon claims, because I was not there to witness those events. If I had been there, I would not believe anymore, for I would know whether those events happened or not. I hope that I have cleared this up for you.

 

[darcee]

Yes… you will believe in what you want and require knowledge for anything else…

Thank you for proving my point.

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

While your standard for the BoM and JS is that they can not be proven to be other then what they claim. No matter how unlikely that claim is or how contrary to history, logic, theology or anthropology – you will accept it unless someone can show you absolutely that they are false… again requiring your first hand witness.

Here is an example of you claiming knowledge. You say that there is contrary evidence found in history, logic, theology and anthropology that prove the Book of Mormon false. Since you are claiming knowledge, I am asking you to provide that evidence.

darcee:

Your grasp of logic and rhetoric is a bit shaky.

Oh, really? What is shaky about my grasp of logic and rhetoric? I only claim I know things that I can definitely prove. Everything else I take on faith.

darcee:

Even when logical fallacies in your arguments are pointed out to you – you persist in them to the point of absurdity… remember I am the Empress of Cascadia.

I am beginning to doubt that you really are this Empress of Cascadia. Since I have not witnessed this to be true, I can only believe or not believe that this is true. Since you state this as fact, can you prove it?

darcee:

I think it is telling that you have broken away from your faith what is it? twice? because they have strayed from what you have determined to be the truth.

It depends on how you look at it. You say that I have broken away from my faith, namely the church I belonged to, and I say that the church broke away from me. To determine who is still the same church, one must compare the doctrines of the two groups with that of the original church. The one that follows all the same doctrines is the continuation of the truth, even if that group is smaller than the group that doesn’t teach all the same doctrines of the original church. If the apostate group (the group that teaches doctrines that were not taught originally) is more numerous than the group that still adheres to the original doctrines, the apostate group can easily vote in favor of the new doctrines and against the other group, even though the other group is really a continuation of the original.

Therefore, I have not broken away from any group, since I still believe the original doctrines of the church. They have broken away from me. Since the other group was more numerous than the group I am part of, they were able to approve by vote a change in the original church. There are still some who are staying with the church, believing that God is going to remove the apostate leaders from power. But this has never happened as I see in history.

darcee:

But all in all I think you are a nice guy, I wonder that you have persisted in this for so long and I admire your stick-to-it-ness.

Thank you for the compliment. If I did not wholeheartedly believe in what I am professing on this forum, I would have given up long ago.

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

Yes… you will believe in what you want and require knowledge for anything else…

Thank you for proving my point.

-D

Not so. I don’t require knowledge. Since Catholics claim that they have this knowledge, I ask them for proof, so that I may possibly have this knowledge, too. I am wise enough not to claim knowledge of something that I have not witnessed firsthand. I believe certain things in history, but I do not know them for sure. If someone has written something down in the past, I have reason to believe that this something is true, but I do not absolutely know it.

My point is that if you are bold enough to claim that you know something, you ought to be able to prove it. Otherwise, you should claim that you only believe it to be true.

 

[Tmaque]

I think this thread should be closed…the subject has been beaten to death.

 

[AmandaPS]

Tmaque:

I think this thread should be closed…the subject has been beaten to death.

I agree. It seems there’s no dialoguing with rod that doesn’t eventually end up in a circle.

But I just have one more question for rod: Do you believe Joseph Smith’s claim that the Garden of Eden was originally in Missouri?

 

[Lorarose]

The proof is in the new testament. The proof is in true history that is confirmed by scholars. The proof is in the great variety of written material left behind through the centuries, beginning with the earliest christians - up to the present.
There is a remarkable consistency with catholic faith today as compared to the faith the early christians practiced whent the church was in its infancy.
This consistency centers around the eucharist.

This supposed “apostasy” that happened in our church…never happened. The faith has been passed down through the ages and has been protected. That is why you won’t see homosexual marriages blessed by the catholic church. That is why you won’t see female priests in the catholic church. That is why abortion will never be condoned by the catholic church.
The catholic church CANNOT waver on these issues - because the teaching has already been handed down from Jesus and the apostles. Our popes have declared they don’t have the AUTHORITY to change the deposit of faith. It is their job to protect it and clarify it’s meaning if need be - but never to change it.

Here are some sources for the Early Fathers. It takes time to wade through it all and there is so much “proof” in their writings I woudn’t know where to begin on this thread.
If you really are interested in history - and what happened to the apostles and their spiritual offspring - you will read the Early Fathers.

http:www.ccel.org/fathers2/

Oh yeah - another good source for finding this “proof” would be our host’s website. Go to Mr. Keating’s www.catholic.com and you will be able to sift through quite a bit of proof.

 

[darcee]

I agree this thread is going no where… but since ROI asked…
rod of iron:

Oh, really? What is shaky about my grasp of logic and rhetoric? I only claim I know things that I can definitely prove. Everything else I take on faith.

It is interesting that you ask an question and then provide an example in the very next sentence. I don’t have time, nor do I think our hosts would approve, of me putting forth a course on formal logic in this thread, but I will try to briefly explain a few things you are missing.

Knowledge is not as you claim the result ONLY of provable experience. Knowledge is not only the result of “sensation” but also of “thought”. Knowledge is “the psychological result of perception and learning *and *reasoning.” I know that Vienna, Austria exists because I have been there. I know that Paris, France exists because I have learned about it. I know my five year old ate the last two donuts because I reasoned he was the one who ate them. While I could in theory be wrong about all of them (I might have really been hallucinating my time in Vienna, Paris might not be real and I suppose the cat or mutant ants *could *have eaten those donuts) I can say I have knowledge of those facts with relative certitude.

A belief is “any cognitive content held as true” we can belive in things we know. Knowledge and belief are not at all incompatible. Since you subscribe only to the emotive meaning surrounding the word “belief” you see it at odds with the concept of knowledge, limiting your understanding and use of knowledge to only what is “sensed” – physical first hand knowledge. This is a logical flaw which makes debating with you nearly an exercise in futility.

It is ironic that you said to flameburns623, “Perhaps, my answers are not too persuasive to you, because you have already made up your mind what you believe the truth really is.” Perhaps it would be useful to ask “why do you belive what you belive?” If, to you knowledge and belief are not compatible then what gives you any reason to not belive everything told to you that can not be proven wrong? Simply a matter of what you chose. You decide to belive one thing and not another. This sets you up as the sole arbiter of religious truth.

It is obvious that Catholics “belive” that Peter is the rock of Christ’s church and that the Catholic church is the continuation of the same. We have knowledge to back up this belief as well.

-D

 

[cestusdei]

Faith for mormons is just a “feeling”. If I feel it then it must be true. Rather shallow actually. They can feel the earth is flat all they want, but it still isn’t. If they understood what faith really is then maybe the discussion would go somewhere. I remember talking to a mormon, a lawyer, a bright guy until faith came up. Then he closed his eyes and his mind and repeated the mantra. You could just see his intellect shutting down. As Catholics we don’t need to do that.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

rod of iron:

You are confusing faith and knowledge. Faith and knowledge are opposites of each others. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Knowledge is the evidence of things that are seen. …True knowledge requires witnessing something firsthand. Any other testimony would be hearsay. Faith, on the other hand, does not require a firsthand witness. Faith is what keeps us believing in something that we do not know is true. I believe what Joseph Smith claimed and what the Book of Mormon claims, because I was not there to witness those events. If I had been there, I would not believe anymore, for I would know whether those events happened or not. I hope that I have cleared this up for you.

And I thought you rejected the “burning in the breast”? Sounds like you do accept it under some other wording.

 

[Sophie]

There have been thousands upon thousands of mistakes in Joe Smith’s Mormons books, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price that have been removed. And there are many mistakes they still contain. Point this out to a Mormon and they will dismiss everyone. The writings of Joe Smith alone prove his Mormon club to be nothing but one of the many scams in the world.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Sophie:

There have been thousands upon thousands of mistakes in Joe Smith’s Mormons books, The Book of Mormon, …

I have heard different people say that there are thousands of mistakes in the Book of Mormon. Yet, when they are asked to show what these mistakes are, they quote only a few that they believe are mistakes. But even if a person can cite 5 or 10 mistakes, these alleged 5 or 10 mistakes are clearly not equivalent to these thousands of mistakes that are claimed to exist. If you claim there are a thousand mistakes, you should show all one thousand mistakes. If you can only find 5 or 10 alleged mistakes, you should then claim that there are 5 or 10 mistakes in the Book of Mormon. It is very dishonest to claim that there are thousands of mistakes if you cannot show thousands of mistakes in the Book of Mormon. Claiming that there are thousands of mistakes in the Book of Mormon is an example of a hyperbole. At least try to be accurate please.

If someone were to claim that the Bible had thousands of mistakes within it, yet were only able to show you a few of these alleged mistakes, would you be satisfied that there really are thousands of mistakes in the Bible? Would you say that since you were shown a few mistakes, you would accept as fact that there are thousands of mistakes in the Bible? I doubt it.

What I am saying is that if you claim there are thousands of mistakes in the Book of Mormon, I expect you to show me at least a thousand mistakes. Otherwise, I must reject your claim.

Sophie:

… Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price that have been removed.

I have never heard anyone claim that there are mistakes in these two books. But I do acknowledge that there are a few revelations that the Mormons have in their Doctrine & Covenants that were not received by Joseph Smith. As for the Pearl of Great Price, I do not accept this book as scriptural, so it would not matter to me how many mistakes you claim is in it.

Sophie:

And there are many mistakes they still contain.

Many mistakes still remain? Isn’t it great that most of these thousands of mistakes that you claim existed have been corrected? If they have now been corrected, you should have no problem believing the corrections as being completely accurate, because they would now be correct, right?

Sophie:

Point this out to a Mormon and they will dismiss everyone.

Do you honestly believe that a Mormon would accept as fact these thousands of mistakes you claim are in the Book of Mormon if you are unable to provide proof of all of these thousands of mistakes? You must certainly expect a Mormon to accept a hyperbole as truth.

Sophie:

The writings of Joe Smith alone prove his Mormon club to be nothing but one of the many scams in the world.

This would have to be one of the biggest scams in the history of man. But it would seem to pale in comparison with the Catholic scam of convincing people that the Catholic church is the one true church that Jesus Christ established on Earth.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Lion of Narnia:

And I thought you rejected the “burning in the breast”? Sounds like you do accept it under some other wording.

How do you figure that the distinction I made between faith and knowledge to be equivalent to a “burning in the bosom”? I don’t follow you.