How do the Mormons do it?

[Naf623]

So when you said “appearing to the contrary” you really mean no evidence.

no, what I mean is what I say. That just because evidence appears to say one thing, you can never completely discount the possibility that there is also something you do not know. This especially applies when you also believe in an omnipotent God; we may never know everything about how He works, and so for some things we rely on our faith in Him, and that He has told us something is true. If God tells us something is true, yet we have evidence that appears to contradict this, who are you going to believe?
There is evidence that some people accept as proving there is no God, I don’t accept your evidence against Joseph Smith any more than either of us accept this evidence against God.

You don’t have to know ‘everything’ to prove one thing wrong.

Quite a different argument, and it can easily be argued that you do, especially where God is concerned.

You have given us an example of “How Mormons do it.” They do it the same way atheists do it. They confuse subjects which are scientific with subjects which are not. God is not subject to science. The history of the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and the Book of Mormon are subject to science.

Actually I specifically separated the two. As I pointed out, the way we discover about God can be approached with a logical, reasoned argument (logic an reason are both scientific methodologies) and you rightly agree, but this only gets us so far as our search will not produce material, quantifiable results such as a true scientific experiment would. I never said that God was subject to science.
Which part of my original post is it that you have issue with? I believe that everything I said was mutually agreeable ground about our search for God between both faiths.

The issue is the same one the Pope would have: The Book of Mormon is claimed to be science (history) so it is subject to science and as science it is false, it is fiction written in the 19th century.

Really think that your pope would denigrate another on the basis of their belief?

I am unsure why you feel the need to take such an aggressive standpoint, particularly given that I have made no attack against you. We all have beliefs, and these differ in places. This does not mean that we have to be at loggerheads, and I did not come for any argument over doctrinal differences.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So absence of evidence is now evidence of absence, is it? As above, I assume you have verifiable physical evidence of the existence of God. Otherwise your own logic states He cannot exist.

The problem with this approach is, it can be used to believe anything. God didn’t create us as rational creatures in order that we could become gullible.

There is evidence for the existence of God. Creation itself, including you. Jesus Christ, who became Man, and was God among us.

I realize that Mormons like to resort to atheistic arguments, but you are here among believers, not atheists. I come from an atheist background, and I don’t believe in God for the sake of believing in God. God has given me evidence for Himself, in my own experience, which can be related to others and verified against reality. That is, God can lead me to Him, and I can verify that where He led me is not a sham, using reason and logic. The Book of Mormon has much to reason against it, and is not evidence for the existence of anything, including God.

A book is a book, it is not God. I believe first, in God, revealed to us (humans) as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. From there, I can test and verify the claims of different believers, which I have done throughout my life. Mormonism doesn’t pass the test, there is so much evidence contrary to its claims, the first being, a “great apostasy”, which can be shown to be false.

 

[catholic-rcia]

I am unsure why you feel the need to take such an aggressive standpoint, particularly given that I have made no attack against you. We all have beliefs, and these differ in places. This does not mean that we have to be at loggerheads, and I did not come for any argument over doctrinal differences.

The attack on 2000 years of Christianity came from the Mormon Church not the Catholic Christian Church or other Christian Churches. The Catholic Church is not built because another Church has fallen or went into Apostasy. It was built because we are all sinners and fallen. Quite a difference.
Refreshing as well.

Visit my new Blog here in Northern Utah
patheos.com/community/chooseyourcross/

 

[Naf623]

The problem with this approach is, it can be used to believe anything. God didn’t create us as rational creatures in order that we could become gullible.

But I wasn’t using that argument as proof or reason to believe anything. Just as an argument pointing out that just because you see no evidence for something doesn’t preclude it’s existence.

There is evidence for the existence of God. Creation itself, including you. Jesus Christ, who became Man, and was God among us.

I agree with you, absolutely. There is a Book of Mormon scripture that states “all things denote there is a God”

I realize that Mormons like to resort to atheistic arguments, but you are here among believers, not atheists. I come from an atheist background, and I don’t believe in God for the sake of believing in God. God has given me evidence for Himself, in my own experience, which can be related to others and verified against reality. That is, God can lead me to Him, and I can verify that where He led me is not a sham, using reason and logic. The Book of Mormon has much to reason against it, and is not evidence for the existence of anything, including God.

And my original post said exactly this. We agree on this methodology, I don’t see what you feel the need to attack my beliefs when I have done nothing of the sort to yours?

A book is a book, it is not God. I believe first, in God, revealed to us (humans) as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. From there, I can test and verify the claims of different believers, which I have done throughout my life. Mormonism doesn’t pass the test, there is so much evidence contrary to its claims, the first being, a “great apostasy”, which can be shown to be false.

it passed the test for me. I went to a RC secondary school, so I have experience in both, and The LDS faith made and felt more right to me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But I wasn’t using that argument as proof or reason to believe anything. Just as an argument pointing out that just because you see no evidence for something doesn’t preclude it’s existence.

As I said, this can be said of anything…I don’t think it is a very rational approach to truth. Is everything possible until proven that it’s not? Is this your view?

It’s possible you’ll sprout horns, prove to me that you won’t.

And my original post said exactly this. We agree on this methodology, I don’t see what you feel the need to attack my beliefs when I have done nothing of the sort to yours?

Who’s attacking? The fact is the Book of Mormon has much evidence against it, as does Joseph Smith, as does the idea of Christ’s Church falling into apostasy.

So instead of retreating into emotional persecution, you could address the points.

it passed the test for me. I went to a RC secondary school, so I have experience in both, and The LDS faith made and felt more right to me.

“felt”…Are we discussing feelings?

 

[dcana]

Some church leaders have voiced personsl opinions on various matters that turned out incorrect. “A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”. Not every word that proceeds from the mouth of a prophet (who are, after all, still only human like the rest of us) is a prophetic pronouncement.
I’m not sure what you mean about doctrines shifting? Can you clarify which doctrines the church used to teach, and now teaches against?

I extremely disappointed at the very UN-Christain attitude you have attacked my personal beliefs with. I am equally as entitled to hold mine as you are yours. I have made no attack against any of your beliefs, no pronouncement that I am right and you are wrong, no attempt to proselyte, no derogatory remarks whatsoever, yet I am met with an attitude of hostility and derision. Hardly a Christ-like attitude.
A question was posed directly regarding the faith I associate with, and I attempted to make a mutually understandable and agreeable response to that question. I note that nothing directly regarding my actual original post seems to have caused any issues (and in fact was pointed out that your own Pope had said something similar).
If this were the only experience I had of Catholic practitioners (and thankfully it’s not as I attended an RC school), I would be ashamed to assosciate with them.
I would ask that you show the sane respect for my beliefs as I do for yours (some of which seem as absurd to me as some of mine do to you). This doesn’t mean you have to agree, or keep genuine questions to yourself; rather that you lay down your prejudices and ask politely.
I don’t think this is unreasonable, do you? It’s what you’ll be expecting of me, after all.

First of all, by “you” are you referring to me? If so, I apologize. I meant no offense. I was simply trying to understand “How Mormons do it” regarding conflicting personal testimonies. What was it I said that offended you to such a degree? I mean no disrespect to PaulDupre, but in the same post you quoted him as saying that “All of this leaves no doubt that the BoM is a 19th-century work of fiction.” You say that I, presumably, made an attack against your beliefs and a pronouncement that I am right and you are wrong, attempted to proselyte you, made derogatory remarks towards you, and have an attitude of hostility and derision. Please show me where I did these things. I made no remarks towards any poster, nor towards any specific LDS member. I only asked in generalities. This greatly troubles me.

 

[Stephen168]

There is evidence that some people accept as proving there is no God, I don’t accept your evidence against Joseph Smith any more than either of us accept this evidence against God.

I’ve never met an atheist who claims there is proof for no God, they claim there is no scientific proof for God. I have not given you any evidence against Joseph Smith, so it seems you are just giving an emotion response, not a reasoned one. Emotion and feelings seems to be common in Mormonism.

Actually I specifically separated the two. As I pointed out, the way we discover about God can be approached with a logical, reasoned argument (logic an reason are both scientific methodologies) and you rightly agree, but this only gets us so far as our search will not produce material, quantifiable results such as a true scientific experiment would. I never said that God was subject to science.
Which part of my original post is it that you have issue with? I believe that everything I said was mutually agreeable ground about our search for God between both faiths.

Your original post claimed we can know things through feelings and then suggested that is how Catholics also know things. Catholicism is based on faith and reason. I reject your wanting us to sit around and “feel” together. As Catholics we ask Mormons to reason. Reason would not find the god of Mormonism or find the Book of Mormon to be non-fiction.

Really think that your pope would denigrate another on the basis of their belief?
I am unsure why you feel the need to take such an aggressive standpoint, particularly given that I have made no attack against you. We all have beliefs, and these differ in places. This does not mean that we have to be at loggerheads, and I did not come for any argument over doctrinal differences.

I’m not sure why you would feel denigrated by the truth: The Book of Mormon is claimed to be science (history) so it is subject to science and as science it is false, it is fiction written in the 19th century. The Pope does not back away from the truth. He gets lots of media attention for this.

 

[Stephen168]

it passed the test for me. I went to a RC secondary school, so I have experience in both, and The LDS faith made and felt more right to me.

I attended Boy Scouts at a Mormon Church for over four years, and the Catholic faith was much more reasonable.

 

[Naf623]

First of all, by “you” are you referring to me? If so, I apologize. I meant no offense. I was simply trying to understand “How Mormons do it” regarding conflicting personal testimonies. What was it I said that offended you to such a degree? I mean no disrespect to PaulDupre, but in the same post you quoted him as saying that “All of this leaves no doubt that the BoM is a 19th-century work of fiction.” You say that I, presumably, made an attack against your beliefs and a pronouncement that I am right and you are wrong, attempted to proselyte you, made derogatory remarks towards you, and have an attitude of hostility and derision. Please show me where I did these things. I made no remarks towards any poster, nor towards any specific LDS member. I only asked in generalities. This greatly troubles me.

No, I apologise for the confusion, it was not directed at you NMR intention was that the paragraph break finished my direct response to you, and i intended to address those who had chosen to begin attempting to disprove my beliefs, despite my attitude of friendliness. Re-reading my post, I see how it was not clear, and I apologise.

I’ve never met an atheist who claims there is proof for no God, they claim there is no scientific proof for God. I have not given you any evidence against Joseph Smith, so it seems you are just giving an emotion response, not a reasoned one. Emotion and feelings seems to be common in Mormonism.
Your original post claimed we can know things through feelings and then suggested that is how Catholics also know things. Catholicism is based on faith and reason. I reject your wanting us to sit around and “feel” together. As Catholics we ask Mormons to reason. Reason would not find the god of Mormonism or find the Book of Mormon to be non-fiction.

I’m not sure why you would feel denigrated by the truth: The Book of Mormon is claimed to be science (history) so it is subject to science and as science it is false, it is fiction written in the 19th century. The Pope does not back away from the truth. He gets lots of media attention for this.

I was under the impression that Catholics also believe in receiving a personal witness from
God on which to build your faith? This combined with reasoned logic is exactly what I described.
I still have not seen proof that the book of Mormon is false, only lack of evidence in its favour, which (as I have pointed out) proves nothing a all.

My faith and belief is no less valid than yours, despite your opinion on the matter.

 

[Telstar]

And my original post said exactly this. We agree on this methodology, I don’t see what you feel the need to attack my beliefs when I have done nothing of the sort to yours?

Why is it that all Mormons seem to have the notion that anyone that might disagree with anything they believe is somehow ‘attacking’ them, or their beliefs? Is it a natural persecution complex that they all share, or is it a learned response from their perception that all ‘outsiders’ that might disagree with them about anything (not even related to their faith) are always perceived to be attacking them, personally, because of their belief in Mormonism? Is it ever possible for anyone to simply disagree with a Mormon, either about doctrine or anything else, based on a different point of view and not be accused of ‘attacking’ Mormons?

it passed the test for me. I went to a RC secondary school, so I have experience in both, and The LDS faith made and felt more right to me.

I’m sorry, but if you have never actually been a Roman Catholic, then you cannot claim to have the same experience in understanding Catholicism as a Catholic would, whatsoever. Where you went to school has absolutely nothing to do with you being Catholic any more than your visiting Jerusalem would make you an expert in Judaism. I know quite a few Mormons and have done a lot of personal research into their faith, but I certainly do not have any real experience in being Mormon, nor can I ever make any claim to have had that same experience.

 

[Naf623]

Why is it that all Mormons seem to have the notion that anyone that might disagree with anything they believe is somehow ‘attacking’ them, or their beliefs? Is it a natural persecution complex that they all share, or is it a learned response from their perception that all ‘outsiders’ that might disagree with them about anything (not even related to their faith) are always perceived to be attacking them, personally, because of their belief in Mormonism? Is it ever possible for anyone to simply disagree with a Mormon, either about doctrine or anything else, based on a different point of view and not be accused of ‘attacking’ Mormons?

I’m sorry, but if you have never actually been a Roman Catholic, then you cannot claim to have the same experience in understanding Catholicism as a Catholic would, whatsoever. Where you went to school has absolutely nothing to do with you being Catholic any more than your visiting Jerusalem would make you an expert in Judaism. I know quite a few Mormons and have done a lot of personal research into their faith, but I certainly do not have any real experience in being Mormon, nor can I ever make any claim to have had that same experience.

But there has been only one poster who has politely and friendlily asked a question. Every other post has been “let’s prove the Mormon wrong”, despite my original post having no malice, no statement that I was right over you, no suggestion that my faith is better, and no trying to put down your faith, or put you down because of it. Had polite questions been posed, by people genuinely wishing to understand better, I would have responded very differently; the fact is that all but one immediately jumped into a ‘prove him wrong’ attitude, and I have just apologised to the one for making them feel I thought them a part if it.
I genuinely feel my faith is right abd true, and that I have received witness of this from God by the power of His Holy Spirit. Why does this make my faith any less valid than yours? I have also spent much time reasoning thing out for myself, with God’s help (and not that of LDS church leaders, which would go against what they would suggest, naturally, but obviously I wanted to be able to be objective), and my conclusions drew me to decide that if any Christian denomination were true, it was The Churh of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Your conclusions drew you to catholicism, others conclusions draw them to atheism, Buddhism, agnosticism etc. Whilst each of is believes our position is true and correct, this doesn’t mean that we cannot get along.
I know I dont understand everything about Catholicism: far from it, but having been to school where I did, attended various Masses and services, been taught by the friars, I have more insight than many from outside the faith.

 

[Stephen168]

I was under the impression that Catholics also believe in receiving a personal witness from
God on which to build your faith? This combined with reasoned logic is exactly what I described.
I still have not seen proof that the book of Mormon is false, only lack of evidence in its favour, which (as I have pointed out) proves nothing a all.

My faith and belief is no less valid than yours, despite your opinion on the matter.

As a cradle Catholic I have no idea what you mean by “personal witness from God.” The Catholic Church is my witness from Jesus Christ. The Church was founded by Christ 2000 years ago and it continues to teach what Christ taught. The Catholic Church is supported by the facts of history and her teachings are supported by reason. The Mormon Church was not founded by Christ as a fact of history. It does not continue to teach what Christ taught. Mormon teachings on subjects like baptism and abortion fail the reasonable test. Scientists have shown the Book of Mormon not to be the history book Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

Valid: a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful b : logically correct . Don’t resume to know how valid my beliefs are, you don’t know me. I don’t know you well enough to say how valid your testimony is based on definition ‘a.’ Based on definition ‘b’ the Mormon Church is not valid which would have me question the validity of your feelings.

I have also noticed that Mormons don’t come to Catholic Answers Forum to get Catholic Answers; they come here expecting an open forum to tell Catholics about Mormonism. I do believe the reason you feel persecuted is because you cannot rationally defend your beliefs. You cannot prove the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith claimed it is. A history of where the american aborigines came from.
Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith – History 1:34:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

There is no scientific prove for his claim.

 

[Telstar]

But there has been only one poster who has politely and friendlily asked a question. Every other post has been “let’s prove the Mormon wrong”, despite my original post having no malice, no statement that I was right over you, no suggestion that my faith is better, and no trying to put down your faith, or put you down because of it. Had polite questions been posed, by people genuinely wishing to understand better, I would have responded very differently; the fact is that all but one immediately jumped into a ‘prove him wrong’ attitude, and I have just apologised to the one for making them feel I thought them a part if it.
I genuinely feel my faith is right abd true, and that I have received witness of this from God by the power of His Holy Spirit. Why does this make my faith any less valid than yours? I have also spent much time reasoning thing out for myself, with God’s help (and not that of LDS church leaders, which would go against what they would suggest, naturally, but obviously I wanted to be able to be objective), and my conclusions drew me to decide that if any Christian denomination were true, it was The Churh of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Your conclusions drew you to catholicism, others conclusions draw them to atheism, Buddhism, agnosticism etc. Whilst each of is believes our position is true and correct, this doesn’t mean that we cannot get along.
I know I dont understand everything about Catholicism: far from it, but having been to school where I did, attended various Masses and services, been taught by the friars, I have more insight than many from outside the faith.

You do realize that you’re on a Catholic apologetics forum, correct? Did you really expect everyone here to simply accept everything that you might say about your faith to be true, while we all sit around holding hands and singing “Kumbaya”? This forum’s purpose is for people to discuss the *differences *between our faiths, by comparing them and assessing those differences based on logical and rational discussion of them, by using whatever facts both sides can muster to make their points. If you come here with the attitude that anyone that posts opposing views is ‘attacking’ you in some way, then you probably don’t have the right mindset to be able to discuss our differences without putting yourself in a tizzy over ‘feeling persecuted’ because we disagree with you.

Contrary to the way Mormons seem to think, reasonable people can disagree about certain things without hating or attacking each other, personally. Just because Catholics do not accept LDS doctrine, that doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss why we disagree with it. No one here has attacked you or anyone else, but you keep accusing many of us of doing just that. If you don’t want to hear about why we disagree, or if it bothers you to hear people say that doctrines of your faith are wrong, then maybe you’re not up to the task of verbally defending what you claim to believe. Your “personal testimony” really doesn’t hold any water, here. As Catholics, we don’t base our faith and beliefs on our own personal feelings or imaginings, or anyone else’s. We base them on Biblical facts and the teachings of Jesus Christ that have been revealed to us through the Church that He, Himself, established 2000 years ago (that is still very much alive & well, despite what Joseph Smith claimed about 180 years ago).

Most of us here are willing to defend our faith with whatever it takes to prove our points. You will certainly be confronted by many arguments from our side that will try to help you understand why we believe that LDS doctrine is incorrect. If you’re willing to engage in some very difficult discussions, at times, without letting your ‘feelings’ get in the way or your powers of reason and logic, then you’ll be just fine. But, if you can’t really handle these sometimes rather heated discussions, then perhaps you should get out of the kitchen before you get burned out by them. No one would really blame you for leaving if this kind of thing bothers you that much. Poor Parker is usually the only one that sticks around to ‘fight the good fight’ for the LDS side, while all of his other Mormon friends abandon him (or get booted) to carry on the ‘battle’, alone.

Welcome to the fray.

 

[truthsave]

naf623,

I personally understand your last statement. I have to say that you have been polite. Been polite it is consider a value in our society since gives spaces for everybody to live.
The problem is not with politeness me, as an Orthodox, I have to say you are wrong. Even if what you feel is right. Not saying anything is not Christian correct for my personal, I say personal point of view. I don’t have to support your point of view as you don’t have to support mine. Answers has been sometimes strong but not really hard and insulting. It is difficult to be strong and polite.
The thing of been “sweet” to say the truth is a kind of modern attitude. The old testamets prophets were not really calm and sweet in their way of speaking. Our saviour was not “sweet” all the times. There are sometimes when you have to express yourself in a different way.
So I guess everybody here is sorry if you have felt bad about their saying.
In my opinion sometimes we are tired of playing a double game. Being tollerant and polite when we know what orm who we are facing and what they believe.

I know KKK way of thinking and I can be hard on their view even though they don’t express it openly.
My wife before becoming a Christian Orthodox has been a mormon all her life. She knows what is behond politely speaking.
Behond politely speaking when she left mormonisms she became seen as a different person starting from her family.
Her family thought she has lost the Holy Spirit, that she had been won from the devil to abbandon the only true church.
So even though mormons are polite I know that if you were leaving mormonisms tomorrow your family would very propably (if they are mormon) feel the same way my wife’s family felt. And probably you will loose all your mormon friends like my wife had lost.
I don’t think, at least hope, a Catholic think that my choice becoming Orthodox was dictated by the devil.

As far as the differencein feeling, as you have said Mormon way to find and feel the truth is equal to other find other religion I tell you that it is not true all the time.
I chose to become Christian when I accepted I was like daltonian concerning the truth.
I was not pure enough, nor humble enough to practice a subjective choice. So I relied what we Christian call the fathers of the church. If they were seeing things that way even though I could not see the same way I prefer following them then myself and my personal feeling. Time confirmed this for myself surprisingly humble attitude (for once) to be a correct thing to do.

Same thing attracts same thing. Before I could not be attracted by truth, but only from lies. I was living the biggest lie. The lie of myself. I could I ever, ever say I followed something becouse I have felt was true. I followed the father of the church just because I trusted them without feeling anything except my smallness.

we have to condam to be able to forgive. If not how can you excerce forgiveness?
Justification is an excuse not to forgive anything expecially oneself.

Sometimes would be nice a mormon to do the same study some christian do on mormonism. I have read the book of mormon at least three times, the pearl of great price, D&C, read many many things on the history of the mormon church, studied from many different sources, expecially not religiously oriented ones the life of Joseph Smith.
Then I ask a mormon who is Padre Pio: he doesn’t know. Who is St. Seraphim: he doesn’t know. The Father of the Church: he doesn’t know.
My wife (ex mormon) didn’t even know the existence of the Holy Shroud at Turin or St. francisc life, and even if she would have done she tells me today : so what if they were outside LSD church.
Sometimes would be nice for a mormon comparing with an open heart the life of a known Saint with Joseph Smith.
In the History not one, not one Saint (christian) has ever had a revelation contrary to the basic christian doctrine. Ever. Nor Catholic, Orthodox or whatsoever.
Of course everybody out there is free to think whatever his heart is more inclined to.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, I apologise for the confusion, it was not directed at you NMR intention was that the paragraph break finished my direct response to you, and i intended to address those who had chosen to begin attempting to disprove my beliefs, despite my attitude of friendliness. Re-reading my post, I see how it was not clear, and I apologise.

I was under the impression that Catholics also believe in receiving a personal witness from
God on which to build your faith? This combined with reasoned logic is exactly what I described.
I still have not seen proof that the book of Mormon is false, only lack of evidence in its favour, which (as I have pointed out) proves nothing a all.

My faith and belief is no less valid than yours, despite your opinion on the matter.

There is a difference in Catholicism, that is not found in Mormonism or a lot of other Protestant sects. That difference is, communion. We are in communion with each other through Jesus Christ, with His Church as the visible witness for everyone. We are the Church and the Church is us.

This is very Biblical, in that, God saved a people, the Israelites, numerous times in the OT. As Christians we see these salvic events as prefiguring God saving all of us, as a people, through Jesus Christ.

So while we see it as important to understand Jesus died for me, that can’t be done without putting into context that Christ died for all. Or, as a friend of mine says, no one is a Christian alone.

The Mormon (and some Protestant) idea of “personal witness”, falls outside the witness of Christ’s Church. It is lacking in communion with what Jesus Himself established. So, I wouldn’t say a personal witness is meaningless, as God being involved in our lives, no matter who we are or what we believe, is never meaningless. However, it is lacking in its full meaning until it comes into communion with Christ’s Church. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. The Church being one, being a mark of Christ’s Church.

What we do as individuals, is live a Christian life, and in this manner, we experience Truth, which is Jesus Christ Himself. In this way, Truth itself is verified.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I know I dont understand everything about Catholicism: far from it, but having been to school where I did, attended various Masses and services, been taught by the friars, I have more insight than many from outside the faith.

The concern I have with this statement coming from LDS, is that it is usually made in a context of “I was observing and critiquing everything that is wrong with your faith and figuring out ways to lay my belief over yours…poor people in apostasy” Rather than, really seeking to understand.

 

[Tony888]

I have also noticed that Mormons don’t come to Catholic Answers Forum to get Catholic Answers; they come here expecting an open forum to tell Catholics about Mormonism. I do believe the reason you feel persecuted is because you cannot rationally defend your beliefs. You cannot prove the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith claimed it is. A history of where the american aborigines came from. There is no scientific prove for his claim.

Stephen, that’s because you are in the wrong forum.

Naturally LDS would come here answer questions about LDS, and banter on the other faith topics posed here.

However, for an LDS to explore the RCC faith, this is not the right formn. The dozen or so RCC specific forums are where said LDS would go.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, that’s because you are in the wrong forum.

Naturally LDS would come here answer questions about LDS, and banter on the other faith topics posed here.

However, for an LDS to explore the RCC faith, this is not the right formn. The dozen or so RCC specific forums are where said LDS would go.

Yes, that is where they would go, but they don’t and neither have you. On the very rare times they do go it is not to ask questions about the Catholic Church. It is my experience that Mormons think they already know everything about it so why ask.

 

[Tony888]

Yes, that is where they would go, but they don’t and neither have you. On the very rare times they do go it is not to ask questions about the Catholic Church. It is my experience that Mormons think they already know everything about it so why ask.

What is your point? Are you suggesting we shouldn’t be allowed to post because we don’t ask enough questions about the RCC faith?

I see LDS coming here to primarily post on the LDS faith, a topic they do have expertise on.

LDS do not come here to tell RCC posters ‘the truth’ about the RCC faith. I primarily see Evangelicals posting what might be considered as attacks on the RCC faith.

Stephen, I challenge you to post a handful of such threads started by LDS.

When I look at the first couple pages here, it seems all the LDS threads are started by non-LDS. Many also appear presupose an outcome and are just veiled attacks on the LDS faith. Naturally LDS are here to defend their faith.

 

[Naf623]

As a cradle Catholic I have no idea what you mean by “personal witness from God.” The Catholic Church is my witness from Jesus Christ.

Equally the Bible and Book of Mormon, together with personal, individual revelation through communication with God in prayer, is my witness.
Do you not believe you can go to the source yourself for answers, despite this being taught throughout The Bible?

The Church was founded by Christ 2000 years ago and it continues to teach what Christ taught.

I’m very tempted to say prove it.
Jesus Christ instituted His church around 2000 years ago, yes. After He died and came back to visit the Apostles, He left a very specific order to His kingdom on the earth; A Prophet at the head (Peter), and 12 Apostles (Ephesians 4:11-14). One characteristic that His true church must have is this same organisation; after all, He instituted it in the first place.
Jesus also taught that he would send the Spirit of Truth to the Apostles, even the Holy Ghost (John 14: 17 & 26), and that this comforter would teach them all things. Jesus left His followers on the earth with a means to continue to receive His words, to communicate directly with Him and The Father and to receive comfort and guidance on a very personal level.

The Mormon Church was not founded by Christ as a fact of history.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Jesus Christ appeared to many following His death and resurrection; just because you see no evidence that you are prepared to accept that He appeared to others in more recent times cannot completely discount the idea that He could and did.
Simple logic.

It does not continue to teach what Christ taught.

What did Christ teach that we fail to?

Mormon teachings on subjects like baptism and abortion fail the reasonable test.

Which is?

Scientists have shown the Book of Mormon not to be the history book Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

There has been no evidence provided to denounce the Book of Mormon, merely the absence of evidence, which is a non-argument.

I have also noticed that Mormons don’t come to Catholic Answers Forum to get Catholic Answers; they come here expecting an open forum to tell Catholics about Mormonism.

Actually I discovered this thread specifically when Googling for information for another forum (not religiously oriented) altogether. The question posed seemed like one that I could provide a reasonable answer to, and an answer that I thought would be understandable from your own religious perspective. Perhaps I was wrong.

I do believe the reason you feel persecuted is because you cannot rationally defend your beliefs. You cannot prove the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith claimed it is. A history of where the american aborigines came from. There is no scientific prove for his claim.

There is no scientific proof for the claim that God exists, or that it was His doing that the waters of the red (/reed) sea were in such a state as to allow the Israelites across, or that the waters of the Nile turned to blood. I am not certain (although I could be wrong) that there is any evidence of Joseph in Egypt, or that Abraham, Isaac or Jacob ever lived. How about evidence for the burning bush? Do you similarly discount all these, and plenty of other Biblical stories due to their lack of verifiable scientific evidence?