How do the Mormons do it?

[mwok]

Shhhh!
You can’t use the words “mormon doctrine”!
There apparently is no such thing.

 

[NewSeeker]

Christianley,

A testimony doesn’t “trump” logic, but it does have the following considerations involved:

1–Is the person being sincere in their prayers to Heavenly Father?

2–Is the person being sincere in desiring to live by truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including keeping the commandments, repenting of sins, having faith in Jesus Christ as the Redeemer and Savior of the world and as the Good Shepherd, and earnestly living by the “word of God” found in the holy scriptures, including the Bible as a bedrock foundation of all the scriptures and recognizing that scripture came by revelation to prophets and apostles or by record keeping by those appointed to keep records of the house of Israel?

3–Is the person familiar with how the Holy Spirit bears witness to the soul of the person, as the disciples on the road to Emmaus experienced when Christ taught them about the scriptures that bore record of Him?

Those considerations being in place, including a sufficient knowledge of the Bible to be familiar with the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle John the Revelator, then there is no need for a feeling that the testimony has “trumped” logic–the truths are consistent with logic, but also consistent with the sifting process about motives and desires and faith that God set in place on this earth and allows to happen in the many ways that sifting process happens.

God is perfect, and His sifting process in His plan of salvation is perfect also–no mistakes.

As Tundramom indicated in her post, Mormons blame the sincere seeker if they fail to gain a testimony. This is so common as to border on universal mormon thinking. The logic is simple (and circular). The Church is true and the Book of Mormon is scripture (premise). A sincere person desiring to know, will be given a spiritual witness confirming the truth of the LDS church. Anyone who prays for a testimony but doesn’t receive one is insincere by definition. The evidence of their insincerity is the truthfulness of Mormon claims. The Church is true, therefore no sincere person can fail to be granted that witness by God.

This is insidious, circular logic that can lead to immense suffering when a sincere person brought up within the Mormon community seeks the witness, doesn’t receive it, then is attacked passive-aggressively with this circular logic by well-meaning family members, friends, and church leaders. I left the church after a lifetime of membership to become Catholic in 2008. My wife is still Mormon, as is her family and mine. Anytime someone wants to discuss religion with me, I preface the discussion by saying “I’m happy to discuss the topic, but only on the condition that you do not bear your testimony and that you acknowledge up front, saying it to my face right now, that you accept that I was sincere in my search for a testimony, did what was expected of me to receive one, and still did not receive it.” Needless to say, the few times the topic has come up, the family member just sits there nonplussed, with nothing to say and the conversation ends. And there is nothing else to say. Without their testimonies, Mormons have nothing.

I’ll go further and say these conditions should be stipulated with any Mormon who wants to discuss religious topics with a Catholic, whether in this forum when a Mormon starts a history-based thread or when the missionaries knock on your door. Clarify up front that you won’t accept their testimonies as evidence, so don’t bother ever using it. You’ll only be wasting each others’ time, otherwise. Rest assured, no matter how much evidence is marshalled, in the end, a Mormon will always bear their testimony and you will have spent all that time and effort for naught.

 

[mwok]

As Tundramom indicated in her post, Mormons blame the sincere seeker if they fail to gain a testimony. This is so common as to border on universal mormon thinking. The logic is simple (and circular). The Church is true and the Book of Mormon is scripture (premise). A sincere person desiring to know, will be given a spiritual witness confirming the truth of the LDS church. Anyone who prays for a testimony but doesn’t receive one is insincere by definition. The evidence of their insincerity is the truthfulness of Mormon claims. The Church is true, therefore no sincere person can fail to be granted that witness by God. This is insidious, circular logic that can lead to immense suffering when a sincere person brought up within the Mormon community seeks the witness, doesn’t receive it, then is attacked passive-aggressively with this circular logic by well-meaning family members, friends, and church leaders. I left the church to become Catholic in 2008. My wife is still Mormon, as is her family and mine. Anytime someone wants to discuss religion with me, I preface the discussion by saying “I’m happy to discuss the topic, but only on the condition that you do not bear your testimony and that you acknowledge up front, saying it to my face, that you accept that I was sincere in my search for a testimony, did what was expected of me to receive one, and still did not receive it.” Needless to say, the few times the topic has come up, the family member just sits there nonplussed, with nothing to say and the conversation ends. And there is nothing else to say. Without their testimonies, Mormons have nothing.

I agree with this statement.

I have had numerous dialogues with a mormon coworker and it usually ends with them “bearing their testimony” just as I did when I was mormon.

I have even received in email from this coworker that “prophets may fall, apostles may apostasize. But my knowledge of the truth given to me by revelation will never fail.”

It always comes down to “It’s true because I feel it’s true, there are just some things you have to go by faith”.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Shhhh!
You can’t use the words “mormon doctrine”!
There apparently is no such thing.

It does seem to me that Mormons are permitted a great deal of flexibility in determining what they believe. For example, someone mentioned the infinite regress of gods that many Mormons believe in. Most of the Mormons I’ve met tend to hold this view. Not all, though. Some interpret their scriptures and the sermons of Joseph Smith as permitting a different view, one where the “mortal experience” of God the Father was akin to that of Jesus and thus the Father was divine before He was a man. Both views are, as far as I know, permitted within in Mormonism. This kind of flexibility probably goes a long way in helping them overcome doubts when one considers the contradictions found in the teachings and revelations of Mormon prophets.

Without their testimonies, Mormons have nothing.

I don’t agree with Mormonism but some Mormon scholars, like Sorenson and Blake Ostler, among others, seem to offer a lot more than their individual testimonies. From my own discussions with Mormons, I note that most do tend to rely exclusively on their testimony but I wonder how many Catholics could adequately and logically defend their faith if someone, say a fundamentalist or an atheist, were to challenge them?

 

[mwok]

It does seem to me that Mormons are permitted a great deal of flexibility in determining what they believe. For example, someone mentioned the infinite regress of gods that many Mormons believe in. Most of the Mormons I’ve met tend to hold this view. Not all, though. Some interpret their scriptures and the sermons of Joseph Smith as permitting a different view, one where the “mortal experience” of God the Father was akin to that of Jesus and thus the Father was divine before He was a man. Both views are, as far as I know, permitted within in Mormonism. This kind of flexibility probably goes a long way in helping them overcome doubts when one considers the contradictions found in the teachings and revelations of Mormon prophets.

Also, with the idea of constant revelation it seems that they can dodge what previous and even some of what current “prophets” teach by claiming it was just that persons opinion and was not officially taught.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think for outsiders-looking-in, there is always a tendency to avoid sources and arguments that buttress the truth-claims of the ones being viewed from the outside (in this case, the Mormons). To apply the Captain’s logic in another context, how many times have you Catholics been accused of being “bizarre” for adhereing to beliefs like Transubstantiation and the intercessory activities of Mary and the Saints, which (in the view of some polemicists) have been “proven” to be doctrinally false?

Yet people who I know to be highly intelligent and deeply thoughtful not only embrace these beliefs, but their life’s actions and most deeply-rooted faith is informed by them. So where’s the problem - with them or me?

I vote that the problem is with me. If I can’t reconcile why it is that smart people believe in dumb things, then it’s probably because of my own ignorance and misunderstanding of those things in which they believe. So they’re not dumb things – I’m the dumb thing!

For all of us, the acceptance of truth-claims by which we choose to govern our lives and define our beliefs in God will ultimately be a matter of faith. But if there are also rationally defensible reasons to adhere to those truth-claims, then I think the “cognitive dissonance” to which the Captain refers will be greatly reduced in any body of believers. I certainly see that concept play out in the case of Catholic beliefs. And I do believe that it also holds true in the case of the Latter-day Saints. We’re really not the dupes and troglodytes that some would have you believe.

I don’t know exactly what the Captain means about “anti-factual … notions about American geography … and the Big Race War in History” but I’m assuming he’s referring to the setting of The Book of Mormon (and for the record, “The Big Race War in History” is a phrase I have never come across until just now and I’ll always believe that North Carolina is the fairest in all of American geography).

I certainly can’t be exhaustive here, but a few things are worth pointing out.

Wherever the Captain got his information, it didn’t include anything written by John L. Sorenson. One cannot in fairness be summarily dismissive of BOM claims from a geographical standpoint without addressing the arguments in his 415-page book An Ancient American Setting for The Book of Mormon. Sorenson holds a Ph.D. in anthropology from UCLA and has done extensive on-site work in the Mesoamerican areas for which he proposes BOM locales, so he is not out of his depth in writing on the subject. His other publications include a massive, 900-page bibliography entitled Transoceanic Culture Contacts Between the Old and New Worlds in Pre-Columbian Times: A Comprehensive Annotated Bibliography. These are references to written accounts of people’s contacts with America prior to 1492.

As far as “long disproved archaeology” goes, I’m guessing this has reference to the paucity of archaeological evidence for the BOM as compared with that of the Bible. But again, this issue has been addressed by competent LDS scholarship for a number of years and is really an apple-and-oranges comparison. For said “competent treatment” see this link:

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=1&id=25

In my opinion, “internal cognitive dissonance” is further reduced if the Latter-day Saints will take into account some of the recent scholarly treatments of, for example, the life of Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Bushman, published by Alfred A. Knopf), and of the Book of Mormon (By the Hand of Mormon, by Terryl Givens, published by Oxford Univeristy Press), to cite just two of the incredibly large number of scholarly works currently published on topics having to do with Mormons and their beliefs.

Lefty0908 – the problem with Mormon “scholarship” is that it it’s not. LDS people I know enjoy writers such as Bushman, but all that has been done is an attempt to put a nice spin on the issues within Mormonism that have boiled to the surface over the last 40 years or so. But the issues are not really addressed, just, spun, and it works well for the LDS person who wants to believe. From the outside, it’s just one more layer of nonsense wrapped around the already existing layers. Hugh Nibley did this in volumes, and came up with ideas that resolve nothing…only raise infinitely more questions, without answering anything. Bushman is no different.

For the OP: What works for the Mormon who has a list of unresolved issues or ideas, and has put those ideas on a shelf, is to sooth the cognitive dissonance. Make the discomfort go away. For a Mormon, the Mormon Church has to be true, is true, and so the issues have to have a resolution. Just put them on a shelf, and eventually they’ll sort themselves out. A sense of fear of personal apostasy is instilled into Mormon members, with teachings that demonize those who have “apostatized”.

Cognitive dissonance, which, is a tool to keep things on the shelf. Along with this is compartmentalized reasoning. (A) is reasonable on its own and (B) is reasonable on its own, but (A) and (B) together are not. So don’t ever combine the two, and you’ll do alright as a Mormon.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, the first thing that comes to mind are Catholic beliefs regarding the Eucharist. Specifically that the priest, by saying the words of the consecration, can transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

The priest can transform nothing. It is Christ himself, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that transforms the bread and wine into his body and blood. When God speaks things happen. “Let there be light, and there was light.” When he says “This is my body” it becomes his body. When he says “This is my blood”, it becomes his blood.The priest acts in the person of Jesus and can do nothing without him. So reason comes into the picture. What God says actually happens. That is perfectly “reasonable”.

If you were to take two hosts - one consecrated and one not - and subject them to any kind of examination you could come up with, no one would be able to tell the difference. Of course, the Catholic response would be that, while the accidents of bread and wine remain, the consecrated host has actually been transformed into Jesus. From my perspective, this conflicts with reason. At the very least, it is no more unreasonable than Mormon beliefs.

Well you are inaccurate in your statement that the host has been "transformed", which leads to your misconception. The bread retains its "form". It has changed in "substance", not form, thus the term "transubstantiation", rather than “transformation”. Christ’s divinity was hidden in his humanity while he walked on earth. Now his entire being, body, blood, soul and divinity, is hidden under the appearance or form of bread and wine. Why is this so unbelievable to people? Is it difficult to believe that the God who created the universe, who multiplied the loaves and fishes, could make himself present to us in any form he might choose? No, when God is involved, it all becomes perfectly reasonable.

Besides, rejection of the Eucharist is a modern novelty. It has been the source and summit of the Christian faith since the beginning and that evidence is clear in the writings of the ECF’s. Only since the Reformation has it been rejected. Both the Latin and Eastern Churches have believed this from the start.

 

[SteveVH]

Parker, when I read through the Mormon threads and place myself in your shoes, I’m glad I’m not there and have to say that I do admire your efforts in answering everyone’s questions. It has to be more than a little overwhelming. As frustrating as our conversations can get, I want you to know that I truly appreciate your presence on CAF.

That being said, I would just ask you to please answer my post #10 as it may have been just overlooked. Easy to do.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[PeterL]

From a Mormon perspective:

Mormons live and die by revelation. When we join the church, we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the promise of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost as long as we live worthy of it. Each week, we partake of the sacrament (communion) as a symbol of a covenant we make to follow Christ. In return, Christ blesses us with his spirit to guide us.

Because of all the negative stuff that is dug up and spread about Mormonism, it would be near immpossible to believe without revelation. If the majority of people were trying to disprove Catholicism, Catholics would have the same problem. For example, there are allot of people who believe that the earth was created in 7 days. In light of current science, this idea is laughable. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that there was ever a wall around Jericho. The list goes on and on.

Much of the so called science that disproves Mormonism is bad and extremely biased. I have read a couple of very convincing books that provide geographical, scientific and cultural evidence for the Book of Mormon.

People condemn Mormons for trusting in “feelings”. This is not how revelation is. When a person prays and ponders about a question, God can actually infuse knowledge into us. This experience is like your mind becoming extremely enlightened so that you can completely comprehend. It is likened to the eyes of our understanding being opened. We were blind before but now we can see. Once you have had this expereince, you know. There is 0 doubt. If you knew with a 100 percent surity that there is a God, you would feel a profound peace that can be liked to a burning in the bosom.

Through years of experience with this, a person learns to discern between what is the spirit and what is not. In this way, we can be sure that the direction we are taking is in accordance with the will of God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, the usual tactic of going to the Bible and attempting to discredit it in order to prop up Mormon beliefs.

Genesis is not a literal account. Perhaps Jericho itself cannot be found, however, Hebrews, their beliefs, practices, etc. are not only historically confirmed, but Jews of today exist with the same Traditions. Hebrew texts outside of the Bible exist, and confirm the existence of a people, their culture and society.

Mormons have no such thing with their mythical “Nephites” and “Lamanites”. No culture exists that matches to those in the BoM, no texts exist outside of the BoM that confirm the existence of the people, cultures and societies described in the BoM. They either (a) existed in a vacuum or (b) didn’t exist at all.

The problem with Mormon archaeology is one of preconceived ideas and asserting one’s own experience and ideas against the material evidence. Not to mention giant leaps.

 

[campeador]

Mormon Scholarship???

**Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon
**
I lol’d.

Then I saw the disclaimer.

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That’s some funny stuff.

 

[NewSeeker]

From a Mormon perspective:

Mormons live and die by revelation. When we join the church, we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the promise of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost as long as we live worthy of it. Each week, we partake of the sacrament (communion) as a symbol of a covenant we make to follow Christ. In return, Christ blesses us with his spirit to guide us.

Because of all the negative stuff that is dug up and spread about Mormonism, it would be near immpossible to believe without revelation. If the majority of people were trying to disprove Catholicism, Catholics would have the same problem. For example, there are allot of people who believe that the earth was created in 7 days. In light of current science, this idea is laughable. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that there was ever a wall around Jericho. The list goes on and on.

Much of the so called science that disproves Mormonism is bad and extremely biased. I have read a couple of very convincing books that provide geographical, scientific and cultural evidence for the Book of Mormon.

People condemn Mormons for trusting in “feelings”. This is not how revelation is. When a person prays and ponders about a question, God can actually infuse knowledge into us. This experience is like your mind becoming extremely enlightened so that you can completely comprehend. It is likened to the eyes of our understanding being opened. We were blind before but now we can see. Once you have had this expereince, you know. There is 0 doubt. If you knew with a 100 percent surity that there is a God, you would feel a profound peace that can be liked to a burning in the bosom.

Through years of experience with this, a person learns to discern between what is the spirit and what is not. In this way, we can be sure that the direction we are taking is in accordance with the will of God.

The last church meeting I ever attended was Elder’s Quorum, back in March 2006. I hadn’t been for over a year and attended at my wife’s and parents’ request. They wanted me to give it one more try. Ironically, the topic of the priesthood lesson that morning was how to know when you’ve received personal revelation. OMG. That’s why I stopped going to church in the first place. I couldn’t take any more “you’ll get a testimony if you’re sincere” and “I’d like to bear my testimony, I know this church is true.” You know very well what was discussed during the meeting and what the conclusions were during the summary. At the end, I asked “What if someone tries with all their might to have those experiences and it doesn’t happen, is it always because they did something wrong? Is it always their fault?” Every head nodded yes in unison. Of course. If there was any question before, there was none now. I could only remain a mormon if I assented to the circular logic, the mind control, and agreed with my fellow church members that I was an insincere sinner, unwilling to live up to the standards of the church. Since I knew the opposite to be the truth, I made the decision to free myself, finally, and leave the church and my culture behind. A few years later, I became a Catholic, the culmination of a years-long search for the Truth.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormon Scholarship???

Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon

I lol’d.

Then I saw the disclaimer.

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That’s some funny stuff.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think for outsiders-looking-in, there is always a tendency to avoid sources and arguments that buttress the truth-claims of the ones being viewed from the outside (in this case, the Mormons). . And that’s most likely because my knees are always sore and I therefore envy the Flash terribly).

think for outsiders-looking-in, there is always a tendency to avoid sources and arguments that buttress the truth-claims of the ones being viewed from the outside (in this case, the Mormons).

3: 3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

3: 16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

Its existence was discovered by Joseph Smith when he translated the Book of Abraham. Kolob is mentioned in Chapters 3 and 5 and in the translation of Facsimile No. 2 from the Book of Abraham.

3: 3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

Is this accurate and representative of Mormon Thought?:whacky:

[/QUOTE]

 

[SteveVH]

Peter, first of all welcome to this forum. There are not a lot of Mormon posters and it is always good to get a wider perspective, not to mention that the regular Mormon posters certainly have their hands full. So thanks for being here.

From a Mormon perspective:

Mormons live and die by revelation. When we join the church, we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the promise of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost as long as we live worthy of it. Each week, we partake of the sacrament (communion) as a symbol of a covenant we make to follow Christ. In return, Christ blesses us with his spirit to guide us.

There are many churches in which people lay claim to the gift of the Holy Spirit, Catholics included. The problem is that each of them claims that the Holy Spirit has spoken the truth to them, yet they all disagree with each other. Truth never conflicts with truth, so, objectively speaking, the Holy Spirit cannot be at once telling one group of people that Mormonism is the true faith and another group of people that the Catholic Church is the true faith. Then you can multiply this by roughly 40,000 denominations, each of which claims the same thing. Someone is either “hearing” their own voice, what they want to believe, or is listening to another voice who is lying to them. That is just an objective truth, therefore the claim of the gift of the Holy Spirit from Mormons is no more convincing then the same claim made by any other church.

Because of all the negative stuff that is dug up and spread about Mormonism, it would be near immpossible to believe without revelation. If the majority of people were trying to disprove Catholicism, Catholics would have the same problem. For example, there are allot of people who believe that the earth was created in 7 days. In light of current science, this idea is laughable. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that there was ever a wall around Jericho. The list goes on and on.

I cannot at all agree with you here. First of all, it appears that you believe that Catholics believe that the earth was created in 7 days. Genesis was written in poetic language, in Hebrew idioms. The Catholic Church has never made it a matter of dogma or doctrine that Catholics believe in a literal 7 day period of creation. At the same time it does not deny it because the issue is moot when it comes to faith. The point of Genesis, from a creation standpoint, is that God created everything that exists, from nothing. It is not a science book.

The Catholic Church can actually prove its succession all the way back to the Apostles and to Jesus Christ himself who founded it. It is the only Church on the face of the earth that can do so. We have 2000 years of history for all to see and documentation proving our claims. We know who laid hands upon whom. It is all recorded. The Mormon church, on the other hand, begins with the claim of a man of very dubious distinction; one who made a living as a con artist. He was arrested and convicted of hoodwinking people by the same means as he claims to have received revelation; that is by peering at peep stones in his hat. So you can understand the scepticism from people on the outside.

But more than that are the beliefs themselves which contradict each other yet somehow remain as required beliefs. For instance, the Book of Mormon describes a God who is unchanging, from eternity. The King Follett Discourse describes a God who is dependent upon change; who progressed from a man to a God. You are required to believe both at the same time even though it is objectively impossibly to believe both at the same time. These are the types of things that give us pause and lead us to believe that the claims of Joseph Smith are untrue. Revelation, by definition, means that God has given us a truth which we would not otherwise know. Truth does not change. Yet it does in the Mormon world. Polygamy was a so-called “revelation”. Then God decided to change his mind, very conveniently, at the same time that statehood for Utah was held in the balance over the issue. The same goes for blacks in the priesthood. You cannot name one Catholic doctrine (all of which are based upon revelation) that has ever changed. Revelation, the truth of God, can never change.

Continued…

 

[SteveVH]

Peter, first of all welcome to this forum. There are not a lot of Mormon posters and it is always good to get a wider perspective, not to mention that the regular Mormon posters certainly have their hands full. So thanks for being here.

From a Mormon perspective:

Mormons live and die by revelation. When we join the church, we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the promise of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost as long as we live worthy of it. Each week, we partake of the sacrament (communion) as a symbol of a covenant we make to follow Christ. In return, Christ blesses us with his spirit to guide us.

There are many churches in which people lay claim to the gift of the Holy Spirit, Catholics included. The problem is that each of them claims that the Holy Spirit has spoken the truth to them, yet they all disagree with each other. Truth never conflicts with truth, so, objectively speaking, the Holy Spirit cannot be at once telling one group of people that Mormonism is the true faith and another group of people that the Catholic Church is the true faith. Then you can multiply this by roughly 40,000 denominations, each of which claims the same thing. Someone is either “hearing” their own voice, what they want to believe, or is listening to another voice who is lying to them. That is just an objective truth, therefore the claim of the gift of the Holy Spirit from Mormons is no more convincing then the same claim made by any other church.

Because of all the negative stuff that is dug up and spread about Mormonism, it would be near immpossible to believe without revelation. If the majority of people were trying to disprove Catholicism, Catholics would have the same problem. For example, there are allot of people who believe that the earth was created in 7 days. In light of current science, this idea is laughable. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that there was ever a wall around Jericho. The list goes on and on.

I cannot at all agree with you here. First of all, it appears that you believe that Catholics believe that the earth was created in 7 days. Genesis was written in poetic language, in Hebrew idioms. The Catholic Church has never made it a matter of dogma or doctrine that Catholics believe in a literal 7 day period of creation. At the same time it does not deny it because the issue is moot when it comes to faith. The point of Genesis, from a creation standpoint, is that God created everything that exists, from nothing. It is not a science book.

The Catholic Church can actually prove its succession all the way back to the Apostles and to Jesus Christ himself who founded it. It is the only Church on the face of the earth that can do so. We have 2000 years of history for all to see and documentation proving our claims. We know who laid hands upon whom. It is all recorded. The Mormon church, on the other hand, begins with the claim of a man of very dubious distinction; one who made a living as a con artist. He was arrested and convicted of hoodwinking people by the same means as he claims to have received revelation; that is by peering at peep stones in his hat. So you can understand the scepticism from people on the outside.

But more than that are the beliefs themselves which contradict each other yet somehow remain as required beliefs. For instance, the Book of Mormon describes a God who is unchanging, from eternity. The King Follett Discourse describes a God who is dependent upon change; who progressed from a man to a God. You are required to believe both at the same time even though it is objectively impossibly to believe both at the same time. These are the types of things that give us pause and lead us to believe that the claims of Joseph Smith are untrue. Revelation, by definition, means that God has given us a truth which we would not otherwise know. Truth does not change. Yet it does in the Mormon world. Polygamy was a so-called “revelation”. Then God decided to change his mind, very conveniently, at the same time that statehood for Utah was held in the balance over the issue. The same goes for blacks in the priesthood. You cannot name one Catholic doctrine (all of which are based upon revelation) that has ever changed. Revelation, the truth of God, can never change.

Continued…

 

[SteveVH]

Continued…

Much of the so called science that disproves Mormonism is bad and extremely biased. I have read a couple of very convincing books that provide geographical, scientific and cultural evidence for the Book of Mormon.

That is a matter of opinion and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But when you have huge civilizations which left no evidence of their existence, that purportedly used blends of metals for weapons that didn’t even exist in that period of history, can you understand why people might be a little skeptical?

People condemn Mormons for trusting in “feelings”. This is not how revelation is. When a person prays and ponders about a question, God can actually infuse knowledge into us. This experience is like your mind becoming extremely enlightened so that you can completely comprehend.

Wow. You can “completely comprehend”? I am very happy to hear that. So please explain how you believe in the contradictory doctrines that I mentioned concerning the nature of God as set forth in the Book of Mormon and the King Follett Discourse. I’m very interested in learning how you reconcile this.

Through years of experience with this, a person learns to discern between what is the spirit and what is not. In this way, we can be sure that the direction we are taking is in accordance with the will of God.

So this divine infusion of knowledge is based upon experience? What does experience have to do with infused knowledge? Aren’t you, by definition, speaking of experiential knowledge? What about those who aren’t really all the way there yet, who have not reached this level of experience? Isn’t this witness of the Holy Spirit a pretty basic requirement, even for new converts? If they have not had years of experience with this then how can they be sure? When exactly do you have complete comprehension, as you claim to have? How does one know when it is complete and who is the judge of this?

Thanks.

 

[Lefty0908]

In light of the fact that BYU requires religious observance of it’s student, and that all people who work for or attend BYU must observe Mormon religious practices, I wonder how many of these Mormons with greater religious observance attended BYU for their initial higher education. And how much of an influence the rules at BYU had, after all the consequences of non-participation or even something as trivial as having a cup of coffee or a beer are steep and they become even greater as you go through school. Who wants to go looking for another college with a record of breaking an “honor code”?

No need to wear yourself out looking for educational institutions that have honor codes. I’m a graduate of the University of Cincinnati. They have one. Most of my adult life I lived in Charlotte, NC. I know from personal experience that Charlotte Catholic High School has a very strict one (do you mock them, too, Z?). Just north of Charlotte is Davidson College, a Presbyterian school where I taught part-time. I know they have one. Princeton? Got one. Vanderbilt? Yup. Stanford? Uh-huh. Westpoint? Better believe it! (I’d better stop listing the schools having honor codes before my fingers cramp-up). I even feel certain that at some time in its past, America’s oldest Catholic university had an honor code, at least when it was founded by Archbishop John Carroll and run by the Jesuits. Unfortunately, it seems that Georgetown University lately has become more interested in trying to put its Catholic identity behind it, so I don’t know. And maybe I’m totally missing your point. Perhaps you think its OK to have an honor code - just don’t enforce it.

I don’t know how many BYU students comprised the sample of Mormons used in the study of how higher education affects religious commitment. The co-authors of the study are both professionally trained sociologists (Stan Albrecht, Ph.D. in sociology from Washington State University and Tim Heaton, Ph.D in sociology from Harvard), so I would assume their sample would be a statistically fair cross-section so as not to skew their results. Certainly a very many Mormons attend institutions of higher learning other than BYU. The paper’s title is “Secularization, Higher Education, and Religiosity, Latter-Day Saint Social Life, Social Research on the LDS Church and its Members” (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1998). At the time of its publication, Albrecht was on the faculty at the University of Florida and so wasn’t even residing in Utah.

Then here comes the dog pile from everybody else. Mormons don’t have any scholars, just spinmeisters (we put “scholars” in quotes relative to Mormons so as to be clear that they really don’t have any) . Bushman gets a pat on the head, but certainly he’s no real scholar or historian, which causes me to wonder the same thing as another Mormon “non-scholar” who asked “When, exactly, did Richard Bushman lose his credibility as a historian? Was it prior to his winning the Bancroft Prize? Did it occur while he held his endowed chair in American history at Columbia University? Was it after his retirement, during his stint as a research fellow at Princeton? Or has it occurred only recently, after Columbia University Press published a collection of his LDS-related essays entitled Believing History?”.

And just how is it, anyway, that all these dopey non-scholars have conned the smart guys at Oxford University Press, Yale University Press, Columbia University Press, Alfred Knopf, and so many other first-rate publishing houses into printing their tripe about Mormonism? To me, many of you are making precisely the point that Owen/Mosser argue in their paper to the Evangelical community.

Everybody lol’s - it’s all just too funny. But interestingly, nobody takes on the arguments of current LDS scholarship. I only see bald assertions that no such scholarship exists. A common legal disclaimer at the end of a paper is seen as proof that its content is bogus. Really? Maybe we need a thread on what a legal disclaimer is. And if you don’t know, wouldn’t you at least wonder why the very institute that publishes and distributes the work hasn’t pulled it? Or why the leaders of the church haven’t disavowed it?

I think that the greater “cognitive dissonance” that is attempting to be resoved here is that which comes about when the reality is faced that Mormons aren’t nearly the idiots many would like to portray them as being.

 

[RebeccaJ]

the question is, how do Mormons do it?

A big from me because I never could, and it is something I will never understand. But “Mormons are idiots” is not a good explanation, because we know Mormons are not unique to the general population, some are idiots, some are not.

Did Bushman win secular awards for his work in Mormon history?

It isn’t about the credentials of Mormon scholars, it is about their work in relationship to Mormonism. History is put to a the same view the Bible is, proof-texting. In other words, we see what Mormons do to Catholic history, and the same methods are applied to Mormon history.

In archaeology, there is a reliance on middle-level research (what can be inferred), which has known issues, including personal bias of the archaeologist. Mormon researchers never go through what is required to show they have considered other possibilities that aren’t aligned to their own biases. Anyone who points this out is anti-Mormon, and a whole paper is posted up at BYU to show how everyone is anti-Mormon. How is this to be taken seriously?

There aren’t any non-Mormon people in the field of archaeology who support Mormon research.

No matter how bad you want solid research to be there, it isn’t.

And finally, no amount of research will ever get over the hurdles that exist in the mere claims of Mormonism. A great apostasy, polygamy, pre-existence…these are non-Christian in origin, something other, all with historical, theological, liturgical and Biblical evidence that they are false teachings.

For the general population of Mormons, these are issues that don’t come up because Mormons are never taught Christian history, other than, in the light of a very skewed Mormon version. For a Catholics looking in, there is a big what in the world, and why would you believe?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Then here comes the dog pile from everybody else. Mormons don’t have any scholars, just spinmeisters (we put “scholars” in quotes relative to Mormons so as to be clear that they really don’t have any) .

…

Everybody lol’s - it’s all just too funny. But interestingly, nobody takes on the arguments of current LDS scholarship. I only see bald assertions that no such scholarship exists. A common legal disclaimer at the end of a paper is seen as proof that its content is bogus.

I don’t know about anyone else here but I am not of this opinion. I do admit that when I first started looking at Mormon apologetics, I thought it was mostly damage control. I don’t think that way anymore. I don’t, in the end, believe that Mormon scholars are successful in establishing the (likely) historicity of the Book of Mormon but I have come to appreciate that many, like Sorenson, have made serious, scholarly efforts to do so.