How do the Mormons do it?

[SnakeMauler]

. . . how do Mormons keep together all these disparate, anti-factual aspects of their faith? I mean the notions about American geography, etc., long disproved by archaeology? And the big Race War in History concept?

I’m not knocking Mormons. I just see the potential for a great deal of internal cognitive dissonance, and wonder how it’s all reconciled.

There are a few things I admire about Mormons, first and foremost, their perserverance. They are criticized, harassed, and people do so much to them, however, they all seem to be rather meek and I have yet to see a Mormon respond to criticism through excessive profanity or violence, nor do I believe Mormons in general are likely to turn on their own religion in a public place (Such as for example when your typical mythological American criticism of Catholicism arrives in a classroom setting and someone is like “I was ‘raised’ Catholic it was a bunch of ****.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’d like to see something that shows in 1828 “swine” was equivalent to “domesticated animals”, nothing I’ve looked at implies that.

Again the contortions needed to uphold and defend seem so very sad not to mention tiring.

 

[ParkerD]

I’d like to see something that shows in 1828 “swine” was equivalent to “domesticated animals”, nothing I’ve looked at implies that.

Agreed. That was my point–that “swine” did not mean domesticated animals.

The person I was responding to had indicated they thought “swine” did mean domesticated animals. That was part of their main point.

 

[1voice]

Hi, Aquabatix,

I don’t know that people familiar with the difference between a mule and a donkey (which term was not in use in 1828 according to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary which is online–the other term being the term actually used in the Book of Mormon) would say it was a “petty” difference. A mule can’t have offspring.

The word “pig” in 1828 would have meant a young swine, and would be associated with a domesticated animal. I think the word “swine” was the more correct term.

If you look up the words “peccary”, “llama”, “alpaca”, and “guanaco” in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, you won’t find those words. So one dealing with a translation about animals in existence in ancient America would have a difficulty if they were looking at a small drawing or trying to bring over the meaning from the ancient language into English.

But you are certainly right that you can take the word “swine”, limit it to the 2011 meaning or the 1828 meaning that was exclusively swine and not “animal that looked similar to a swine and had similar characteristics”, and you will be able to be triumphant in “knowing” that the Book of Mormon “couldn’t possibly be true” because swine weren’t in the New World in 800 BC based on the assumptions from the findings of archaeology.

For me, I look at the fact that a translation in 1828 would be logical to use a word for an animal that was somewhat like the species being described, even if not the same precise species. So you have your way of looking at it, and I have my way of looking at it, and we can be different and be just fine.

So we should not believe that the names of the animals in the stories are actually those animals?

 

[catholic-rcia]

Hi, TS Krobacz,

I agree that “the Bible provides plenty of wisdom for a lifetime of learning and growth in the Spirit.” That doesn’t limit the Book of Mormon from adding to that pattern–except for those who choose not to reap its benefits. It is a choice one can make for themselves, a gift given for those who choose to receive the gift.

Spiritual truths are that way, as attested by the Bible in several places.

When Adam and Eve accepted this same kind of gift you offer they lost that which was given to them as a free gift from God. This loss was their inheritance. And their children’s inheritance along with it. (me included) When I turned to Jesus He gave it back to me. When He died for me He gave it back to me. Not going to loose it Parker. There is no benefit for me that you could offer as for me this would be going back to where I came…back sliding away from the Chritsian God that I love, that is my entire life. The pattern is forgiveness and reconciliation, healing through our Lord and God Jesus. There is nothing to add to this kind of pattern found through the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. Here is a great example. Last Sundays readings. When I went over the readings for last Sunday I was reminded strongly once again why I am a Catholic. Why are Church is not built on the faults of another Church. Rather it was built to heal us from our own faults.

Sir 27:30-28:7
Wrath and anger are hateful things,
yet the sinner hugs them tight.
The vengeful will suffer the LORD’s vengeance,
for he remembers their sins in detail.
Forgive your neighbor’s injustice;
then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.
Could anyone nourish anger against another
and expect healing from the LORD?
Could anyone refuse mercy to another like himself,
can he seek pardon for his own sins?
If one who is but flesh cherishes wrath,
who will forgive his sins?
Remember your last days, set enmity aside;
remember death and decay, and cease from sin!
Think of the commandments, hate not your neighbor;
remember the Most High’s covenant, and overlook faults.

Rom 14: 7-8
Brothers and sisters:
None of us lives for oneself, and no one dies for oneself.
For if we live, we live for the Lord,
and if we die, we die for the Lord;
so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.
For this is why Christ died and came to life,
that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

Matt 18: 21-35
Peter approached Jesus and asked him,
“Lord, if my brother sins against me,
how often must I forgive?
As many as seven times?”
Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.
That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king
who decided to settle accounts with his servants.
When he began the accounting,
a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount.
Since he had no way of paying it back,
his master ordered him to be sold,
along with his wife, his children, and all his property,
in payment of the debt.
At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said,
‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’
Moved with compassion the master of that servant
let him go and forgave him the loan.
When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants
who owed him a much smaller amount.
He seized him and started to choke him, demanding,
‘Pay back what you owe.’
Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him,
‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’
But he refused.
Instead, he had the fellow servant put in prison
until he paid back the debt.
Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened,
they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master
and reported the whole affair.
His master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant!
I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to.
Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant,
as I had pity on you?’
Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers
until he should pay back the whole debt.
So will my heavenly Father do to you,
unless each of you forgives your brother from your heart.”

 

[ParkerD]

So we should not believe that the names of the animals in the stories are actually those animals?

1Voice,

Try if you will, to think of a translator, with no word for “llama”, no word for “peccary”, no word for “alpaca”, no word for “Rocky Mountain Sheep”, and the word “ox” readily meaning “bison”.

What would you do, being a translator, if you were trying to describe an animal using a term familiar to the people who would be reading the translation, but which was one of those animals unfamiliar to them or to you but had some similarities to the animals with which they and you were familiar?

 

[ParkerD]

When Adam and Eve accepted this same kind of gift you offer they lost that which was given to them as a free gift from God…

Catholic-RCIA,

I am familiar with that logic. That logic would say that humankind are dead to the things of the Spirit, and would blame that on Adam and Eve with no recognition that the atonement of Christ overcame the effects of the fall of Adam and Eve.

That logic is what Paul was trying to get his readers to move away from when he wrote his epistle to the Corinthians and wrote about “hidden wisdom” from God as being completely different from the “wisdom of men” and the wisdom of the flesh.

Whatever happened to wanting to be back in the presence of God, back into the pattern of gaining greater knowledge than the limited and ultimately short-changing “wisdom of men”?

 

[Monica4316]

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.

Hi, if I may ask two questions…

1. After the person sees that God is real, how do they know that it’s the Mormon church that is right? How come others who see that God is real, decide that the Catholic (or other) church is right?
2. How do you test between spirits? I mean, if the “burning in the bosom” is a type of feeling (ie: something experienced), how do you always tell if it’s always from God, each time? Of course only God would say that He is real, so that time it’s from Him maybe. What about subsequent times, when the person learns about Mormonism and feels the same way? and what if a person feels similarly about Catholicism, for example? Do you think that maybe there’s an objective way to tell what the truth is? (I think so…)

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

And that’s the extent of the point I’m trying to make, so I thank-you. As I originally posted, I believe that cognitive dissonance is at least smoothed (if not resolved) when expressions of faith can be accompanied by rational arguments that buttress one’s faith. I grant that for a very many Mormons their reliance solely on their faith (testimony) completely serves the purpose of cognitive dissonance resolution. I respect that, but I’m not one of those Mormons. I need some reason to accompany my faith. By the same token, I have known a very many Catholics who resolve their own cognitive dissonance by also ignoring any knotty problems of theology and history and simply fall back on the tradition that their grandparents and parents were Catholic, and so shall they too remain - end of story.

I do see a bit of a difference though… I have tried studying Catholicism for a couple years now and no I’m not any scholar but I have not found anything that causes cognitive dissonance to begin with, because everything is consistent. Everything is explained. I can easily find answers to any question on Catholic doctrine. With Mormonism, it seems people are saying that there are things that contradict each other, for example God being unchangeable or changeable. Is there an explanation of what is meant here? thanks

"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."

I didn’t write that there is “something wrong” with anyone who prays and doesn’t get an answer or doesn’t get a “burning in the bosom” or makes a different choice in their life about religion.

The words “including sufficient knowledge of the Bible…” mean that the person needs to have read the Bible several times if they are coming from an analytical background, with what one could call a “fresh mind” meaning they are willing to let themselves be taught by the words they read and if they have questions about a particular passage, they are willing to pray about their questions with an open mind and a sincerity of heart about their questions. It also means they could go years with their questions on their mind and be getting no answers, and yet they are being taught through their own life’s experiences, and their own desires will have fruit in their lives while they still have their questions unanswered.

God answers prayers on His timetable, not ours. We are the learner, He is the Perfect Teacher, with perfect knowledge of how to go about the teaching.

the part I don’t understand though, is how there are Catholics and Protestants and Mormons who are sincere and trying to follow Christ, - yet they have all come to believe in different things, on points. For example, I “feel” strongly about the Eucharist. I’m a convert to Catholicism and I remember the time when God “showed” me about this. But the reason I believe in the Eucharist is also because it’s so clearly present in Scripture, Tradition, history, miracles, lives of the Saints, etc. Especially, importantly… in Scripture and Tradition: in general revelation.

I admire the Mormon emphasis on faith. I just think that God would reveal teachings that are consistent with the teachings of His Apostles, because we KNOW that He gave them those teachings. We might believe the He has shown us something. But about them, we know.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

RJ,

The quote by J Reuben Clark is indeed an interesting quote, no doubt one that you will use for the rest of your life.

But what I would like to understand, is if you think Christ had genes, and DNA, at all–and if so, where those genes came from?

Jesus is fully God and fully Man… His DNA came from Mary (X chromosome). The Y chromosome - we dont know, but God could have simply created it. We do not believe that God the Father has DNA because He is Spirit. We believe that Jesus took on human nature as it says in Scripture “and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

Miriam,

What I’m trying to understand is not whether Jesus Christ is believed to be “God”, but whether He is believed by Catholics to be the Son of God, or if He is believed to have “generated his own Y chromosome”. (Wouldn’t that make Him the Son of Himself?)

No because… before Jesus had a body and took on human nature in time, He was always the Son, in the Holy Trinity - in eternity. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father. I’m saying, we are talking about spiritual realities here. We don’t understand the Trinity but - He is begotten by the Father in a spiritual, not a physical way. So it really doesn’t matter that the Father doesn’t have the chromosomes but the Son does and we call Him the Son. Spiritually and in His divine nature He is the Son. Try to understand that He has TWO natures: fully human, fully divine. In His human nature, He got His DNA from Mary and the Y chromosome - that is a mystery.

I hope I didn’t say any heresy here… fellow Catholics please correct me if I incorrectly explained Catholic teaching.

Also, if He was the son of Mary and she was the only contributor to His DNA for His physical body, then that was the most basic of non-scientific and illogical ways to describe how He was conceived.

Christ’s conception should not be scientific, considering that it was miraculous. Scientific is the regular biological process. His conception was not like that, considering various points like Mary being a virgin, being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, no human father, etc.

 

[Monica4316]

Miriam,

The above comment shows not the slightest level of understanding about Latter-day Saint beliefs and knowledge about Jesus Christ, the literal Son of God. Jesus is more “fully God” within Latter-day Saint beliefs than within what are being described as Catholic beliefs about His being the divine Son of God, since the Catholic beliefs about the Fatherhood of God are said to be a “mystery” that should just be accepted “on faith”.

Jesus is also “fully man” within Latter-day Saint beliefs, literally by means of His literal mother, Mary. He is more “fully God” within Latter-day Saint beliefs because we are not just talking about His spirit being the Son of God, but we are talking about His physical body having received the divine attributes of His power over death through having the physical power to do that because He is the literal Son of God in a bodily way.

ParkerD, we don’t say that Jesus was begotten of the Father in His conception. He is eternally begotten, in His being as the Son… not physically but spiritually. God the Father does not exist the same way as us; He does not have spirit and body; He is Spirit. God the Son is eternally begotten by Him. In the Incarnation, He took on human nature and is fully God and fully Man for that reason. He rose from the dead because of His divine nature, not because His Body needed to have physically been begotten of the Father. It’s not like we believe His Spirit is God and His Body is human. Jesus is fully God and fully Man!

 

[Monica4316]

Does anyone anymore believe in a literal Adam and Eve? For me the thought/concept is contradicted by science.

Michael, I read somewhere (sorry I don’t have the source right now) that Catholics are obligated to believe in a literal Adam and Eve and that they fell and that we all descended from them. Regarding the science side of it… I dont know, I took biology classes in university and I would not say it “disproved” anything in our faith. I wouldn’t say the contradictory points in science are facts, but still theories held together by a philosophy. There’s much we dont know yet from a scientific perspective…

 

[Monica4316]

well I just went to the Mormon church website and read a whole bunch of their stories, and I can see that they are very sincere people who are just trying to follow God like I am too. I disagree with the teachings that are different from Catholicism, but it seems like mostly the people that I read about were just happy to find out about God and Jesus, and since this happened to them through the LDS church, they joined it. I dont really understand everything about the “burning in the bosom” that they described because people get that for different beliefs, whether they’re Mormons or Catholics or Protestants or others. I think it’s good to look at the Bible and Church history and of course to pray.

God bless

 

[tskrobacz]

Hi, TS Krobacz,

I agree that “the Bible provides plenty of wisdom for a lifetime of learning and growth in the Spirit.” That doesn’t limit the Book of Mormon from adding to that pattern–except for those who choose not to reap its benefits. It is a choice one can make for themselves, a gift given for those who choose to receive the gift.

Spiritual truths are that way, as attested by the Bible in several places.

Of course your perspective conveniently ignores Revelations 22:18-19

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

 

[aquabatix]

Agreed. That was my point–that “swine” did not mean domesticated animals.

The person I was responding to had indicated they thought “swine” did mean domesticated animals. That was part of their main point.

ParkerD,

No, I never said that I thought “swine” meant “domesticated animal”. My main point was that you were defending terms that are written in the BoM by saying that these were terms for animals that were similar or predecessors of animals that we have by that name today who clearly were not around until centuries after the BoM times. My point is that while you can try and conjecture that “donkey” or other terms could have meant “llama” by some stretch of the imagination, other terms such as “swine” have NO predecessor on this continent. If JS was translating by the power of God through his peepstone in his hat, he would have been able to give a different term of something that was here or perhaps even a new term. There are plenty of new terms and names in the BoM that people have had to learn and accept if they believe the scripture to be true.

It is not a different way of looking at it, it is a simple example of the errors in the BoM that display the many holes in the fabric. Is it a simple piece that is seemingly meaningless, by itself, yes. But when taken into account with ALL the other inconsistencies and errors and difficult “doctrine”, the whole thing tears apart. I know that it did for me. Instead of trying to explain away every little inconsistency, take truth and history for what they are. If you are ok with what is left, THEN that is a different way of looking at it; but at least it’s honest.

 

[rbarcia]

Please show me the conflicts between Catholic theological and/or doctrinal beliefs and reason. One or two examples would be sufficient.

Sure, here is one.

Transubstantiation. It is not reasonable for someone outside of catholicism to believe in that.

 

[Stephen168]

Transubstantiation. It is not reasonable for someone outside of catholicism to believe in that.

Do you have a syllogism for that conclusion?

 

[rbarcia]

Do you have a syllogism for that conclusion?

It is just axiomatic. Obviously, bread is not a body and wine is not blood. So it is not reasonable to the common person. As a catholic, you may find it reasonable because you have been trained that way, but in the real world, even a child can see it does not make sense. My kids ask me all the time, how can a piece of bread really be a body. Natural question. And the answer from a catholic would be, just believe it. You can throw Aristotle philosophy around Accent versus the appearance, but again it takes analysis paralysis and imagination, not reason. At least not for a common person like myself.

Of course, if you treat it as just a symbol, much easier to accept from a common sense stand point.

 

[aquabatix]

It is just axiomatic. Obviously, bread is not a body and wine is not blood. So it is not reasonable to the common person. As a catholic, you may find it reasonable because you have been trained that way, but in the real world, even a child can see it does not make sense. My kids ask me all the time, how can a piece of bread really be a body. Natural question. And the answer from a catholic would be, just believe it. You can throw Aristotle philosophy around Accent versus the appearance, but again it takes analysis paralysis and imagination, not reason. At least not for a common person like myself.

Of course, if you treat it as just a symbol, much easier to accept from a common sense stand point.

I’m sure that’s what some disciples thought too, but it is clear that is not what Jesus meant. You can see that it is not what He meant by the fact that many disciples stopped following Him after he continually taught about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. If it were supposed to be taken as mere symbol, like the vine or door He also said He was, they should have had no trouble with this teaching.

That’s logic.