How do the Mormons do it?

[Naf623]

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.

Actually, initially I did not know that this was that type of forum; hence why I did not expect a barrage of comments on subjects I had not raised. As above, I found this thread itself, not the forum generally, in a Google search for something else entirely.

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.

When I came up against posts like this:

There is NO evidence for the story in the Book of Mormon.

Evidence to the contrary means the claim is false.

Yes, the Mormon Church is not founded in reason or science. It is founded on a guys story.

I did not feel the apparent hostility was justified.
I am more than happy to be disagreed with, and to have a discussion and debate. But there’s no need that it should have to be in any way hostile or un-necessarily argumentative.

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.

We shall see I guess. Now that I am better prepared for how to expect this works.

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

You misinterpret; it is not based on things we just feel out of ourselves; it is that we come to recognise the workings of The Holy Ghost within us, and what He teaches us to be true, must be true because He is The Spirit of Truth and The Spirit of Revelation. he is our conduit to converse directly with deity and thus learn the will of our Father in Heaven for ourselves; both individually and communally.
This, to me, is one fundamental part of faith. The other is study, ponder and think it out for yourself. The two together are vital to prevent being blinded by crafty words and the cunningness of men and the devil.

(that is still very much alive & well, despite what Joseph Smith claimed about 180 years ago).

Ever heard of the game Chinese Whispers… I’ll assume you have and understand the concept I’m getting at here.

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.

I’ll do my best

Welcome to the fray.

Thanks very much lol

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.

By the same token this could be claimed of any church by its followers.

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.

But Christ Himself stated: “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself”. A very personal suggestion to ‘any’ (/every) man (/person) to do his will, and discover for themselves; personally.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Every time I see this thread pop to the surface I hear a song “Nobody Does It Better” with images of 007 in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It’s kind of odd.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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

I see no reason why evidence is required to denounce the BOM. LDS (and only LDS)are claiming it is the history of people who lived here a couple of thousand years ago. You claim it is actual history of real people, it’s up to you to provide evidence of the truth of your claims.

 

[zaffiroborant]

{QUOTE=Telstar]
(that is still very much alive & well, despite what Joseph Smith claimed about 180 years ago).

Ever heard of the game Chinese Whispers… I’ll assume you have and understand the concept I’m getting at here.

I see you can give as well as you get, we should see no more complaints along the lines of those you have logged so far.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m very tempted to say prove it.

It is in all the history books.

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.

The Mormon Church was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, almost 1800 years after the life of Christ. Those are the facts of history. Absence of evidence can be evidence. If you claim there is bread in the bread box then we look in the bread box and find it empty; that is evidence that your claim is false. The world was empty of Mormonism until 1830.

What did Christ teach that we fail to?

The Eucharist is center of Christian worship. All Churches with true apostolic succession believe in the real presences of Christ in the Eucharist.

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

DNA is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

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.

You didn’t say what the question was that you attempted to give an answer to, so I can’t say if you were wrong. For a Mormon to assume they know the Catholic perspective is usually a mistake.

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?

Christianity is based on Christ and his Catholic Church. The New Testament is scientifically proved to be a first century document. The Book of Mormon is a 19th century document.

 

[Stephen168]

I see you can give as well as you get, we should see no more complaints along the lines of those you have logged so far.

What is the Chinese whispers game?

 

[zaffiroborant]

What is the Chinese whispers game?

Telephone

 

[Stephen168]

Telephone

oh yes, I’ve heard Mormons use that very poor analogy of history before.

 

[Naf623]

By the same token this could be claimed of any church by its followers.

Apologies; I appear to have used the wrong section of quote relating to this statement. I meant the bit about the fact that the church exists being your witness from Christ. It doesn’t follow logically on its own as it can be widely applied to any church or denomination, that the very fact it exists is somehow proof of its truthfulness.

I see no reason why evidence is required to denounce the BOM. LDS (and only LDS)are claiming it is the history of people who lived here a couple of thousand years ago. You claim it is actual history of real people, it’s up to you to provide evidence of the truth of your claims.

So you’re starting from the standpoint that something can’t be true and correct until evidence is provided?
That’s like saying that gravity did nothing until Sir Isaac Newton noticed?
Or that matter was not composed of atoms until someone suggested it might be the case and investigated?
All truth is truth, regardless of what evidence is/isn’t available. And simple lack of evidence is never an argument against anything,

If you claim there is bread in the bread box then we look in the bread box and find it empty; that is evidence that your claim is false.

Yes, having looked you would have evidence that there was no bread. But until you open the bread box you have no evidence either way, and neither argument can be propped up by any amount of reasoning (unless you were the one who ate the last slice ). The thing with a bread box is that you know the bread would fill all or most of the box, and so you know exactly where to look; America is just a little larger, plus has been in constant use since. So that’s like looking for evidence of a crumb from a loaf of bread from your bread box a year ago.

The Eucharist is center of Christian worship. All Churches with true apostolic succession believe in the real presences of Christ in the Eucharist.

We believe that Christ is present symbolically. Note we also believe in Apostolic Succession.

DNA is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

It has never been claimed to be an exhaustive account of everything that happened there, especially in the years after it finished, or in other parts of the Americas. The Book of Mormon itself only claims to historically correct for the bits that it talks about; Nephi made two different sets of plates that were written on. The set that came to be the Book of Mormon was the set that formed a spiritual record; it only has the records that were considered important for people’s spiritual welfare; the other set of plates contained a more full history. For whatever reason we do not have these records.

You didn’t say what the question was that you attempted to give an answer to, so I can’t say if you were wrong. For a Mormon to assume they know the Catholic perspective is usually a mistake.

The original post regarding Latter Day Saints apparent cognitive dissonance where others consider our beliefs to be contradictory.

Christianity is based on Christ and his Catholic Church. The New Testament is scientifically proved to be a first century document. The Book of Mormon is a 19th century document.

We also accept the Bible record. I see no reference in The Bible to ‘Catholic Church’.

What is the Chinese whispers game?

Get a group of people (works just as well with adults as with children) and give one a simple statement to pass on. This is then whispered to another person, who passes it on to another, and to another. However, the game prevents any individual (or group) from asking a second time what was said from any of the previous people who held it. However good the intentions of those passing it on, the message invariably changes; sometimes in some ludicrous ways.
As you do not seem to accept the possibility of returning to the original source (i.e. God Himself) to ensure the correct, original meaning and interpretation are still the same today as they ever were; I fail to see how you can ever be sure it is correct.

 

[pablope]

Apologies;

We also accept the Bible record. I see no reference in The Bible to ‘Catholic Church’.

.

In Acts 9:2…it was known as the “Way”

2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the** Way,** whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

Acts 11:26…“Christian” is used…“26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”

From Acts 9:31…“church throughout all” is the root word for universal or Catholic, when you get to research the greek word for it.

In AD 107 or so…Ignatius of Antioch…in a letter to Smyrnea…writes or mentions the “Catholic Church”…indicating it has been used to describe the CC previously…meaning “Universal Church”.

 

[Naf623]

In Acts 9:2…it was known as the “Way”

2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the** Way,** whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

Acts 11:26…“Christian” is used…“26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”

From Acts 9:31…“church throughout all” is the root word for universal or Catholic, when you get to research the greek word for it.

In AD 107 or so…Ignatius of Antioch…in a letter to Smyrnea…writes or mentions the “Catholic Church”…indicating it has been used to describe the CC previously…meaning “Universal Church”.

So no reference to that as the name Jesus gave to His church then? Just an early reference using that word (or it’s root) as descriptive of the church.
The early church were simply known as Christians, and adopted the same name themselves. Effectively calling themselves The Church of Christ, or the church of those who follow Christ. Why drop His name, especially as He should be the focus of our thoughts and the basis of our faith.

 

[JHow]

…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…

Help me with the arithmetic here. Do you not count Peter as one of the Twelve? Or am I mis-reading you?

 

[Naf623]

Help me with the arithmetic here. Do you not count Peter as one of the Twelve? Or am I mis-reading you?

I’ve just written it badly, sorry. In the NT Peter, as prophet still counts as one of those 12, yes. Although we believe there was Peter at the head, with James & John as assistants/counsellors. We believe that the 12 apostles are in addition to this (as we refer to it) First Presidency.
My personal thoughts are that in the early church the membership were not so far flung and numerous as to need additional members to serve in the travelling ministry and special witnesses that make up the 12. Now we also have quorums of (up to) seventy as additional travelling general authorities. Either this or we simply do not have all the records of exactly what the organisation entailed as far as numbers, other than there being 12 Apostles.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, having looked you would have evidence that there was no bread.

Therefore, a lack of evidence can be evidence.

We believe that Christ is present symbolically. Note we also believe in Apostolic Succession.

Like I said your belief is not what Christ taught and your apostolic succession is ahistorical.

It has never been claimed to be an exhaustive account of everything that happened there, especially in the years after it finished, or in other parts of the Americas. The Book of Mormon itself only claims to historically correct for the bits that it talks about; Nephi made two different sets of plates that were written on. The set that came to be the Book of Mormon was the set that formed a spiritual record; it only has the records that were considered important for people’s spiritual welfare; the other set of plates contained a more full history. For whatever reason we do not have these records.

The Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. I know the Mormon Church is changing its claim on the Book of Mormon in an attempt to make it fit the facts of science but that just makes Smith look like less of a “prophet” than he already does. You do not have the records because they only existed in Smith’s head. No Smith…No records.

The original post regarding Latter Day Saints apparent cognitive dissonance where others consider our beliefs to be contradictory.

I think you were wrong in trying to incorporate Catholicism into Mormon thinking.

We also accept the Bible record. I see no reference in The Bible to ‘Catholic Church’.

so? That doesn’t make the Book of Mormon non-fiction.

Get a group of people (works just as well with adults as with children) and give one a simple statement to pass on. This is then whispered to another person, who passes it on to another, and to another. However, the game prevents any individual (or group) from asking a second time what was said from any of the previous people who held it. However good the intentions of those passing it on, the message invariably changes; sometimes in some ludicrous ways.
As you do not seem to accept the possibility of returning to the original source (i.e. God Himself) to ensure the correct, original meaning and interpretation are still the same today as they ever were; I fail to see how you can ever be sure it is correct.

Like I said the game is a very poor analogy of history. It was not just one person that walked with Christ, watched his crucifixion, his resurrection his ascension; then pass the stories to one other person. A better game would be get 100 people in a room and give them a few beliefs to share among themselves. They are free to talk to each other as much as they like. Take one person out of the room, and add two other persons. The other 99 get to explain the beliefs to the new people. The new people can ask all the questions they like. In this game the beliefs would never change due to the free exchange of information, and if one person in the room tries to change a brief, the others will correct them.

 

[JHow]

Every time I see this thread pop to the surface I hear a song “Nobody Does It Better” with images of 007 in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It’s kind of odd.

And I was going for a certain Captain and Tennille song…

It is has been a struggle to avoid comment on this unfortunate thread title.

 

[Naf623]

Therefore, a lack of evidence can be evidence.

No, because having seen that the bread is not there you have evidence of absence. Only before opening do you have an absence of evidence; and this bolsters neither parties claim. The entire argument that no evidence=evidence is a non-argument from the outset.

Like I said your belief is not what Christ taught and your apostolic succession is ahistorical.

You mean it doesn’t follow the way you would like it to. Things fall to the ground faster than I would like under the force of gravity: this doesn’t change the truth of gravity and it’s 9.8m/s/s.

The Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. I know the Mormon Church is changing its claim on the Book of Mormon in an attempt to make it fit the facts of science but that just makes Smith look like less of a “prophet” than he already does. You do not have the records because they only existed in Smith’s head. No Smith…No records.

Changing our claim? How so?

I think you were wrong in trying to incorporate Catholicism into Mormon thinking.

I did not do that at all. My comments I believed would be acceptable, or at least understandable from your religious perspective.

Like I said the game is a very poor analogy of history. It was not just one person that walked with Christ, watched his crucifixion, his resurrection his ascension; then pass the stories to one other person. A better game would be get 100 people in a room and give them a few beliefs to share among themselves. They are free to talk to each other as much as they like. Take one person out of the room, and add two other persons. The other 99 get to explain the beliefs to the new people. The new people can ask all the questions they like. In this game the beliefs would never change due to the free exchange of information, and if one person in the room tries to change a brief, the others will correct them.

But when it’s not just a single statement, but a system of teaching and belief, then people have different opinions of the interpretation. Over so much time, it would be astonishing for anything to still be in it’s original form if no (name removed by moderator)ut and conversing with the author and source is sought.

 

[Stephen168]

The Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. I know the Mormon Church is changing its claim on the Book of Mormon in an attempt to make it fit the facts of science but that just makes Smith look like less of a “prophet” than he already does. You do not have the records because they only existed in Smith’s head. No Smith…No records.

Changing our claim?

no

The problem with the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith’s claims it is a science book. When we apply science to the Book of Mormon to see if it is what Joseph Smith said it is, the Book of Mormon is found to be not true; it is proved to be a 19th century American work of fiction.

There is evidence that proves Joseph Smith was wrong about the Book of Mormon.

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.

 

[Stephen168]

Changing our claim? How so?

The claim of the Mormon Church was the same as Joseph Smith until science proved him wrong. Now the claim is that it is only a story of some people. Even then science shows it is the story of none of the people. Someday the Mormon Church will have to admit it is nothing but feel good fiction.

 

[dcana]

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.

No problem. I am much relieved.

Sorry for just jumping in here - I just read the first 16 pages of this discussion and can hardly see straight at this point. A question came to me as I was reading about the importance of the testimony/burning in the bosom in Mormonism. If you are sincere and pray about a “revelation” and you experience the “burning in the bosom” then you know for sure that the thing in question is true, correct? So what of the teachings of former prophets that have been discarded? If they experienced the burning in the bosom doesn’t it mean that the thing is objectively true? How can something then later be changed? Was it true only for them? It doesn’t matter if something was or wasn’t “officially taught” (whatever that means). The fact is that they had these experiences, or at least claimed to. If a future prophet has a burning in the bosom that tells him that polygamy is really not ok, are we to believe that all previous prophets, not to mention the millions of sincere Mormons up to that point, who were given the sure knowledge that the doctrine of polygamy was true, because, after sincerely praying about it and asking God if it was true, they received their answer from God in the form of a burning in the bosom, were mistaken? I’m confused. Someone please clarify. Plus, how is it that the Mormon church claims to be the “true Church” when their doctrines keep shifting? Can the true Church teach error?

Some church leaders have voiced personal 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?

How do you determine what is unchangeable doctrine from what is merely the personal opinion of a prophet? Do you claim there is such a thing as unchangeable doctrine? Do you claim that when “a prophet is acting as such,” his pronouncements are infallible? How do you know when “a prophet is acting as such?” Is their a place I can go to to see a list of the “official” doctrines of the LDS church? Since you claim to be the re-established, true Church, certainly there should be very clear answers to these questions. According to Wikipedia - please correct me and it if it is wrong - “Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus leads the church through revelation and has chosen a single man, called ‘the Prophet’ or President of the Church, as his spokesman on the earth.” Given this, can you give me a list of the revelations, if there are any, of the current prophet, Thomas S. Monson, when he was acting as such, or show me where I can find them? How about the previous one? What has Jesus told humanity trough Thomas S. Monson, his “spokesman on earth?”

Your response still doesn’t answer the question. If it turns out that your (i.e. “one’s” - I’m not specifically referring to anyone) personal testimony, including the prophet’s personal testimony, regarding this or that matter, as certified by God’s gift of “the burning in the bosom” (so you say, of course - naturally I do not agree with it) is later determined to be false, by future LDS members’ testimonies, what do you make of the prior ones? BTW, where does this notion of a “burning in the bosom” testimony come from? As far as I know, it’s not from the Bible.

Thank you

 

[RebeccaJ]

Apologies; I appear to have used the wrong section of quote relating to this statement. I meant the bit about the fact that the church exists being your witness from Christ. It doesn’t follow logically on its own as it can be widely applied to any church or denomination, that the very fact it exists is somehow proof of its truthfulness.

This is a reduction of the Catholic Church to something less than it is. It is not “just a church”. It is the Church that Jesus Christ established, on the foundation of the Apostles. They, having been given the directive to teach the Gospel to all nations, obeyed Jesus Christ, and in so doing, handed on to their successors the Gospel itself, and the authority (keys) to act in Christ’s name.

I will agree that all other churches fall short of this, including Mormonism.