How do the Mormons do it?

[tskrobacz]

Tskrobacz,

Thanks for being kind in your post. It was Moroni who had fulfilled the prophecy in Revelation 14:6, but of course it wouldn’t be expected by anyone that the church you noted would have recognized that fulfillment, or recognized the calling of modern-day prophets. There would be other explanations in place, including “wisdom tradition” and so forth.

Wishing you peace, and a good day where you are.

You suggest that the Spirit of truth is dualistic and somehow a group of people became “enlightened” to modern day prophets whereas a 2000 year tradition that includes a litany of Saints and Doctors of the church somehow missed the boat…? Seems all to convenient and is the ultimate falling of so many “Christian” and non-Christian religions that attempt to break with the wisdom of history and invent a “new” wisdom.

If the spirit and truth revealed in Jesus alone is not sufficient then neither Mormans nor Catholics have anything short of a deck of cards. If, however, God is revealed in the person of Jesus then that revelation alone must be our guide in the events and writings of those closest to his physical presence on Earth 2000 years ago. The wisdom he revealed at that time has led many to become Saints (including Paul who largely authored the New Testament) that never met the man of Jesus. There is no need to look further.

 

[sallybutler]

This may be off topic, but why does LDS insist on calling St John “John the Revelator”? I find it rather distracting every time there is a quote in this post from the books of John by a member of the Mormon church, he is not given the title of saint. Perhaps that is how they do it, by changing even the little things, like titles and acclamations, so that nothing means the same thing.

But I think others have pointed out that LDS use language and the Bible differently than Christans do

 

[ParkerD]

This may be off topic, but why does LDS insist on calling St John “John the Revelator”? I find it rather distracting every time there is a quote in this post from the books of John by a member of the Mormon church, he is not given the title of saint. Perhaps that is how they do it, by changing even the little things, like titles and acclamations, so that nothing means the same thing.

But I think others have pointed out that LDS use language and the Bible differently than Christans do

Sally Butler,

I referred to the title “John the Revelator” because I was discussing the book of Revelation.

Since there was a John the Baptist and an apostle John, then that would be why the distinguishing title “the Revelator” is used to differentiate and clarify in a simple way.

Latter-day Saints, unless referring to the full title of one of the first four books of the New Testament, don’t usually refer to one of those early leaders as "Saint ___ ", I assume because each active member of the church would be considered a “saint”, since each one takes upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ and is a covenant follower and believer who seeks to be sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The full name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Latter-day” means we’re living during the “latter days” of the earth’s history before the second coming of Jesus Christ, and a time of fulfillment of Biblical prophecies about the “last days”.

So there is a different meaning for the word “saint” than you’re used to, and yes I guess that could be confusing–sorry.

You could look at it in a positive way, and turn the tables a bit and think to yourself “well, then since I’m seeking to live to be sanctified by the Holy Ghost, in Latter-day Saint terminology I’m a ‘saint’”.

So it is a different meaning but it’s looking more at the original New Testament use of the word when talking about the active members.

 

[Naf623]

I did try to read through this whole thread first, but it really is far too long if you’ve not been here from the start: so forgive me if I repeat things.
In essence, if something is true, then it is true regardless of evidence to the contrary, or lack of evidence. Scientifically there is no evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of God, however both LDS and Catholics believe in Him. Similarly the accounts in the Bible are all there are as ‘proof’ of Jesus’ existence: which is otherwise similarly impossible to ‘prove’.
I can’t see gravity, I can’t see atoms, I can’t see Bernouille’s Principle happening; what I can see are the effects of these things, and I therefore accept them as well reasoned explanations, but I also accept (and in some instances expect) that we don’t know everything there is to know (will we, as mortals, ever?), and therefore there may well be more to things currently held as scientific ‘fact’ because we simply do not have the capability to see or detect these at present. Even currently, it seems like the one constant in the universe, the speed of light, has just been broken. Science will continue to attempt to explain it with current ideas, but it might take more than that; the end of the 19th century saw a similar position where scientists were satisfied with ther views, thought they knew a lot and many of ther ideas were definitive. Then X-rays were discovered, and radioactivity, and the electron; scientists believed these would be incorporated within existing thinking and didn’t worry. What actually happened was an almost complete upheaval of the entire way scientists viewed the world.
The only reason I mention all that is to point out how little we, as mere mortals, actually know and are actually capable of observing. And even how little is actually ‘known’ as opposed to inferred from what appears to be going on; yet it is all accepted as fact and definitive principles about how the world around us works.
Also don’t forget that science began as a religious search for truth, to learn more about how God operates.

If something is true, it is true irrespective of the means by which we discover this. In the modern world we are much better educated than in any period in the past, and while this is definitely a good thing, it lends us to be much more analytical with our natural minds, rather than relying on our spiritual guide and listening to The Lord. The world around us will not accept something unless experimental results can be quantified, measured and someone else attempting to replicate gets the same quantifiable measurements. Yet with faith and testimony; what can you quantify? I am sure that God has the means to quantify our faith and works for the purposes of our judgement (that is, unless we effectively judge ourselves, but that’s a different story), but can we really quantify our, or anyone else’s faith or righteousness? Of course not, and this causes problems when trying to explain our (apparently) unfounded belief in something completely impossible to scientifically prove. With science one can share discoveries on paper (or technological equivalent ), and another person will then not necessarily need to do the research themselves. I, certainly, have never done any experiments with subatomic particles, or X-rays, or brain surgery; but because I know that many things that I do and use daily rely on theories and experiments relating to these things (and because it doesn’t really affect my life directly) I’m quite happy accepting these ideas.
When a scientist first publishes his first new ideas and findings, he is not automatically accepted by the rest of the scientific community, and therefore the world. His experiments will be tried time and again by many others. However, after time, he will build up a reputation (even if sometimes his findings turn out to be wrong) for doing things correctly, and coming to correct conclusions. The more he does this, the less others feel the need to replicate every single one of his experiments; they become more and more happy to accept what he says, confident that if they do try it; the results will be the same.
Don’t we treat God the same way? When we start, we’re not really sure if He is really there, or how He will affect our lives, all we have are writings and others’ testimonies.

Cont.

 

[Naf623]

Cont.

Because, sensibly, we must know if He is really there before making a decision on whether it is necessary to follow the laws (I don’t think anyone could deny that living a good life without some of the additional necessities that any religion adds would certainly be more convenient). So we do some research, we study and ponder about Him, and we pray asking Him, to start with, if He is really there. For many, recognising the reply when it comes is not always easy, and made difficult by the way we are now brought up to be extremely analytical and skeptical of things which are ‘just feelings’. We are predisposed to think that anything that doesn’t come through any of our ‘five senses’ (although technically we have many more) is no more than ideas and supposition, that without material evidence to support it, it cannot be real. However, when felt, communication from God or the Holy Spirit is more powerful and real to us than anything our other senses relay only to our brains. Through this powerful experience we can know, despite the lack of material supporting evidence, that God is there, that He loves us and (because we know things about Him from our research and study) that we can absolutely put our trust in Him.
Our journey is far from over, however, as we next need to begin to train ourselves to actually put our trust in Him, not just to know that we should be able to. This is where our faith is really practised in trusting Him, seeing the result in our lives and becoming more confident in Him; this then allows us to put more trust in him, and forms a circle that constantly builds our faith, confidence and trust.
Because we know God is there, and through trial we learn that the things He says are true, we gradually learn that we can accept anything He says purely because He has said it. We can trust not only His teachings, but we gain faith in His appointed leaders on earth, and know that we can trust their words too. By further trial on His words and teachings (as taught by men on earth) we discover which of the many denominations is the one which holds the truth; however this may be a lifetime pursuit given the similarities between many, and the fact that virtually all have some truth taught in them. So we need to identify the teachings which are unique, and practise those to find their validity - as Jesus said “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself”, we need to try it out before we will really know it’s truth or not.
Thus we can apply a very rigorous, logical and almost scientific approach that ultimately will satisfy both our spirit and mind. Once we know that the church as a whole is true, accepting it’s teachings, however obscure and seemingly difficult, because they must be true. In addition we can quite simply put into practise the power of prayer, and the fact that God does answer them, to ask Him to verify the truth of it to us. Whilst He may not always simplify the apparent contradictions that we see; He can quiet our minds to realise that 1. He is there, and it is true, however illogical it may seem to our natural, mortal minds; and 2. (as above with my science explanation) we do not know or understand everything even about the physical, mortal world we live in and can see, smell, touch; so how can we expect to know, understand and (especially) comprehend everything about the Spiritual and Eternal world of God.
And this applies to all religions in different aspects of their belief (so far as I am aware). The Walls of Jericho I believe were mentioned, which would apply both to Christians and Jews; Jesus’ resurrection would also apply to all Christian denominations; The Trinity is something that you as Catholics (last time I heard, and I went to an RC school) believe is unknowable and we, as mortals, cannot comprehend; the Eucharist trans-(I’m sorry I don’t know the full proper word, but realise you don’t use the words transform) from bread and wine into actual body and blood is contrary to basic science, and I’m sure (as agreed by a Catholic poster before) wouldn’t stand up to a scientific exploration either; we as LDS believe God to be perfect and unchanging, yet He was once a mortal man like we are now (whilst I have my own possible ideas as to the meaning and explanation to this, I’m not certain its true and doctrine, although it’s based on general LDS principles); and I’ll be astonished if nobody in this entire thread has brought up the so called 'Adam-God hypothesis (something else which, I’m afraid I can shed little light on).
I hope you appreciate that I’ve included LDS too, as well as Jews because I’m not trying to ‘bash’ in any way shape or form.
The fact is that in any religion, we suspend our need for complete explanation and physical, material proof, because we accept God’s teachings and are confident that He has an explanation, even if we are unable to comprehend it in our present state

 

[Stephen168]

The world around us will not accept something unless experimental results can be quantified, measured and someone else attempting to replicate gets the same quantifiable measurements. Yet with faith and testimony; what can you quantify?

The Pope has said things similar to this. There is knowledge outside the scientific method. We cannot set up an experiment to prove that murder is wrong. We can reason there is a God just as we can reason that murder and stealing are wrong, but the scientific method is useless. The truth of the Judeo-Christian God was arrived at by reason centuries and hundreds of miles from Moses’ experience of him.
The science does apply to things we can know from science. 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.

 

[Naf623]

The Pope has said things similar to this. There is knowledge outside the scientific method. We cannot set up an experiment to prove that murder is wrong. We can reason there is a God just as we can reason that murder and stealing are wrong, but the scientific method is useless. The truth of the Judeo-Christian God was arrived at by reason centuries and hundreds of miles from Moses’ experience of him.
The science does apply to things we can know from science. 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.

I would suggest that the process I described is a reasonably scientific one in many respects; albeit with no quantifiable, material evidence.
I’m not aware, myself, of Joseph Smith claiming the BOM to be scientific?

 

[truthsave]

We just don’t worship the same God.
Jesus for Christian “regular christians” came to accomplish. For us accomplish is accomplish.
for Christians He was the only son of the only God the Father. Not one Christ for one Father that is the God for humans.

For Chatolic or Orthodox like myself He was the alpha and the omege the very beginning and the very end. Not a begining and an end in a part of the universe where we are but of all the universe.

A saint for regular Christians is somebody whose life was the closest to Christ as possible, and often a the more a person aproach to saintity and his heart feel our Lord the more he feels guilty and useles and worthless and not capable of doing good (see St. Paul or St. Therese de Lisieaux) and expecially not worthed.

Mormons latter day saints are somebody whose life is more close to being “good” within human values and view, the more they achieve their saintity through obedience to Joseph Smith teaching (that for them is equal saying Jesus since for them Jesus spoke trough Joseph Smith) the more they feel well, worthy and capable of good thing and deserving to become gods.

So we are different so what.
If they are wrong they are going to be taken responsable for spreading the wrong doctrine of a faulse prophet if they are right they are going to become gods.

They perfectly know the differences between mormonisms and Catholics or Ortodox and others.

If I read the life of St. Seraphim or St.Francisc and compare to Joseph Smith I am inclined to follow them instead of this last one. If St. Seraphim prayed the Virgin Mary I will pray the Virgin Mary and so on.
If a mormon read the life (I hope some of them would like to know since my wife before becoming Orthodox has been a mormon all her life didn’t know absolutely anything about the most well known Christian saints) and the life of Joseph Smith (of which most of them only know the official version) they find a truth in this last one. for which reason they only know, maybe the same reason I am Orthodox and you Protestant or Catholic or following one of Satanism branches.

I won’t consider mormons Christians because they (for me) don’t worship the same Lord I worship, they just call Him with the same name.
They won’t consider myself to be a Christian? It is perfectly ok with me.
I feel I am right? Of course
they feel they are right? Of course.

Let’s leave the judgment to the Lord.
Would I be happy to see them condemned? In a way yes, but then after few seconds since I can’t really stand people suffering my happiness would soon change in sorrow for them.
So let’s leave the judgment to our Lord and that he could be merciful with them and with us.

 

[PaulDupre]

I would suggest that the process I described is a reasonably scientific one in many respects; albeit with no quantifiable, material evidence.
I’m not aware, myself, of Joseph Smith claiming the BOM to be scientific?

Joseph claimed that the BofM is history. History can be proven through archaeology, anthropology, DNA and other scientific disciplines. All of these disciplines yield no evidence to support the BofM’s historical claims.

 

[Naf623]

Joseph claimed that the BofM is history. History can be proven through archaeology, anthropology, DNA and other scientific disciplines. All of these disciplines yield no evidence to support the BofM’s historical claims.

There is nowhere in the world where we find complete evidence of civilisation. Where archaeology finds nothing, it assumes nothing was there. Much of the land has changed, and has also been reused. We also do not know precisely where anything took place. We have a record with no artefacts, would you be so quick to denounce artefacts with no record?
There is no archaeological evidence for The Walls of Jericho ever existing, or for dead Egyptians in the red sea, or for the waters of the red sea ever parting, or for the Nile turning to blood. Do you also discount the biblical record of these events?
the point of my post whas twofold; that we know little of God’s ways; and that something that is true, is true regardless of evidence not being present, or even appearing contrary. I I wasn’t trying to argue points of doctrine, rather share a mutual agreement that our faith is rarely founded on science and proven fact alone, but is a mixture of known fact, reasoned belief, experienced Divine intervention and confidence in Our Lord.

 

[Stephen168]

I would suggest that the process I described is a reasonably scientific one in many respects; albeit with no quantifiable, material evidence.
I’m not aware, myself, of Joseph Smith claiming the BOM to be scientific?

With no material evidence it is not scientific. What you described IS nothing but feelings. It seems if a Mormon ‘feels’ that Eisenhower served in the Navy during the Korean War then it is true.

So we do some research, we study and ponder about Him, and we pray asking Him, to start with, if He is really there.
For many, recognising the reply when it comes is not always easy, and made difficult by the way we are now brought up to be extremely analytical and skeptical of things which are ‘just feelings’.
However, when felt, communication from God or the Holy Spirit is more powerful and real to us than anything our other senses relay only to our brains.

I do wonder what kind a research and study one would do to find the god of Mormonism.

 

[Stephen168]

There is nowhere in the world where we find complete evidence of civilisation.

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

the point of my post whas twofold; that we know little of God’s ways; and that something that is true, is true regardless of evidence not being present, or even appearing contrary.

Evidence to the contrary means the claim is false.

I wasn’t trying to argue points of doctrine, rather share a mutual agreement that our faith is rarely founded on science and proven fact alone, but is a mixture of known fact, reasoned belief, experienced Divine intervention and confidence in Our Lord.

Yes, the Mormon Church is not founded in reason or science. It is founded on a guys story. But don’t project that onto the Catholic Church.

 

[truthsave]

There is nowhere in the world where we find complete evidence of civilisation.

But this is really umbelievable. There is full of evidence of the existence of many cities that you find in the bible and few of them have today the same names. Also geographical places have the same name.
I can recognize you the freedom of cult but you shouldn’t lie to support your cult.

Romans where there. There is no trace or complete evidence of Roman civilization? That there was a king called Herod? There are clear evidence and for certain account there are less clear evidence and for others there are not clear evidence or no evidence at all.

The book of mormon is just full of no evidence at all. Not even in civilitation in the same area. Nobody in that area had ever had a recorded historical contact with the great civilizations or cities of the book of mormon.
And then why the book of mormon? Mormonism is not based on the book of mormon, its name is based on the book of mormon but in that book there is no many gods, Kolob, temple rituals, eternal mariage, the plane of salvation.
If I am not wrong all this are contained in the Pearl of Great Price and the so called book of Abhram. For this reason I would prefer called mormon Smithonians. They don’t follow the book of mormon a part of baptisms teaching. The rest they do is tought somewhere.
The other two books… read Swedemborg theories written before Smiths, Scotish Masonic rites, and you know many sacred - secred where either not so sacred nor so secret.

 

[PaulDupre]

There is nowhere in the world where we find complete evidence of civilisation. Where archaeology finds nothing, it assumes nothing was there. Much of the land has changed, and has also been reused. We also do not know precisely where anything took place. We have a record with no artefacts, would you be so quick to denounce artefacts with no record?

You don’t know where it took place because it never took place.

There is no archaeological evidence for The Walls of Jericho ever existing,

The city of Jericho was discovered many years ago, and the remnants of the walls are still there, several feet underground. Nearly all of the ancient biblical cities are either still there or have been located by archaeologists.

…or for dead Egyptians in the red sea,or for the waters of the red sea ever parting,

Wrong again. Archaeologists now believe that the “reed sea” was the Gulf of Arabia. At the bottom of the Gulf of Arabia, near a shelf that would be shallow enough to walk across under the right conditions, researchers have found coral-encrusted chariot wheels of the exact type that would have been in use at the time the Hebrews left Egypt.

or for the Nile turning to blood.

Granted, that would be hard to prove.

Do you also discount the biblical record of these events?

I do not discount anything in the bible (at least from Abraham onward). There is a tremendous amount of evidence for all of the civilizations, locations, cultures and people in the bible. These civilizations really existed. No credible scientist doubts it.

Any civilization, no matter how small or short-lived, leaves traces of its existence. Civilizations that lived thousands of years ago leave enough artifacts to allow archaeologists to construct most of the details of their daily lives.

By way of contrast, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the civilizations described in the BoM ever existed. No Nephite city has ever been found, there is no trace of “reformed Egyptian” or Hebrew language, and none of the sites for making steel (which last forever) have ever been found.

Not only does the BoM describe plants and animals that did not exist in the Americas before Columbus (flax, silk, horses, goats, swine, etc.) but the foods that the early Americans really lived on (corn, beans, squash, amaranth, etc) are never mentioned in the BoM.

Also, the Nephites were supposed to be Jews who lived the law of Moses (Alma 25:15). And yet, there is no mention in the BoM about any of the feasts, holy days, rituals, dietary restrictions or other disciplines that Mosaic people live by. You’d think that the law given to the Jews by God would figure into their narrative at some point. Since a lot of other useless trivia is discussed in the BoM, it would only make sense that the details of the law that pervades every waking minute of a Jew’s life would at least be mentioned in passing.

All of this leaves no doubt that the BoM is a 19th-century work of fiction.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[dcana]

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?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The fact is that in any religion, we suspend our need for complete explanation and physical, material proof, because we accept God’s teachings and are confident that He has an explanation, even if we are unable to comprehend it in our present state

The first step then is determining the source. Is a prophet a prophet because they claim to be, or can we reason, and find evidence?

LDS use the Book of Mormon as evidence for the prophethood of Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith as evidence of the “truthfulness” of the Book of Mormon.

You can see, this is not logical, but circular.

On the other hand, we are taught how to test the claims of prophecy, using observation and logic. Smith doesn’t pass.

Driving home from work today, NPR was doing an interview with an apostle of the Apostolic Restoration Church. He sounded like a Mormon, with all the claims the Mormonism has including restoration, just applying a “restoration” in a different fashion from Mormon is all. As far as I can tell, a Mormon could view the claims of this man as valid as that of Joseph Smith. There is no difference.

 

[zaffiroborant]

We have a record with no artefacts, would you be so quick to denounce artefacts with no record?

We don’t have a “record” of anything, nothing written within 100 years of the claimed time frame. Nothing from 200 or 500 or even 1000 years from the time frame. What we have is a book published in 1830 without any supporting “records” by a man who claimed it was a “record” of history.

 

[Naf623]

Evidence to the contrary means the claim is false.

Note I said ‘appearing’ contrary. Uess you claim to know everything , there is litre one can say for certain, especially when one believes in an omnipotent God.

Oh, so you have scientific, documented, quantifiable, material evidence of the existence if God? I’d be entrigued to see it.

By way of contrast, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the civilizations described in the BoM ever existed. No Nephite city has ever been found, there is no trace of “reformed Egyptian” or Hebrew language, and none of the sites for making steel (which last forever) have ever been found.

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.

All of this leaves no doubt that the BoM is a 19th-century work of fiction

To you and others. Quite the reverse is true for many also.

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 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.

 

[Stephen168]

Evidence to the contrary means the claim is false.

Note I said ‘appearing’ contrary. Uess you claim to know everything , there is litre one can say for certain, especially when one believes in an omnipotent God.

So when you said “appearing to the contrary” you really mean no evidence. There is evidence that proves Joseph Smith was wrong about the Book of Mormon. You don’t have to know ‘everything’ to prove one thing wrong.

Yes, the Mormon Church is not founded in reason or science. It is founded on a guys story. But don’t project that onto the Catholic Church.

Oh, so you have scientific, documented, quantifiable, material evidence of the existence if God? I’d be entrigued to see it.

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.

We can reason there is a God just as we can reason that murder and stealing are wrong, but the scientific method is useless. The truth of the Judeo-Christian God was arrived at by reason centuries and hundreds of miles from Moses’ experience of him.
The science does apply to things we can know from science. 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.

 

[Stephen168]

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).

The Pope has said things similar to this. There is knowledge outside the scientific method. We cannot set up an experiment to prove that murder is wrong. We can reason there is a God just as we can reason that murder and stealing are wrong, but the scientific method is useless. The truth of the Judeo-Christian God was arrived at by reason centuries and hundreds of miles from Moses’ experience of him.

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.