How do the Mormons do it?

[Stephen168]

I see no sign of Catholicism in the early church, myself.

The Catholic eucharist is in the early Church. NO sign of Mormonism. History is a wonderful thing.

Science can think whatever it likes; without knowing everything (as God does), nobody can ever make any scientifically categorical statement; and anybody who tries, is a fool. Science produces theories, some of which it accepts as facts; while at the same time realising that future evidence may require a re-think.

This is the 1970’s version of “How Mormons do it” They reject science. It is either science or Joseph Smith, so science must go.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

I therefore challenge you to provide evidence, sufficient to convince a well-informed atheist, of the existence of God and the truth of the religion that one should follow.
As you cannot (otherwise there would be only one church, and no atheists), you cannot make assertions against the BOM for similar lack of scientific proof.

You did it again

 

[zaffiroborant]

I therefore challenge you to provide evidence, sufficient to convince a well-informed atheist, of the existence of God and the truth of the religion that one should follow.
As you cannot (otherwise there would be only one church, and no atheists), you cannot make assertions against the BOM for similar lack of scientific proof.

The BoM is claimed to be historical, a history of real people who built cities, roads, who fought wars, like so many other historical people whose traces have been found. A physical historical claim is subject to physical (“scientific”) scrutiny, if the claim is accurate physical corroborating evidence should be found.

And what Steve said in the above post

 

[RebeccaJ]

I see no sign of Catholicism in the early church, myself.

The Mass is described very well in Early Christian writings. The Eucharist is found since the beginning. The Church itself, is described in the NT, and continues to be described as the same Body of Christ until now. There is no break in the continuity of Christ’s Church. You have no evidence that there was.

Splinter groups are not evidence, unless you think the various religions who continue to follow Joseph Smith are an indication that your church has no continuity.

Jesus was baptised by full immersion as our example, as were all the early Christians.

Provide evidence for this assertion please. Meanwhile, for this subject that comes up a lot with Mormons and Fundamental Christians, the Catholic view is express well here:

archive.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

I do believe He guides and guards what is His. I have received a personal witness, both in private and in public ‘communion’ with others, that His church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

You changed the subject. We’re not talking about Mormonism. Perhaps some logical steps will help walk you through what I’m asking.

1 - Do you believe Jesus Christ established His Church during His ministry?
2 - Do you believe the Church He established belonged to Him and no one else?
2 - Do you believe that Jesus guides and protects what is His?

Science can think whatever it likes; without knowing

Others are addressing the topic of science and faith. I’ll only point out God is the author of the world of which science investigates. God is the author of our faith. God made us as rational creatures who are able to reason.

For these reasons, faith and reason are not odds. If faith claims something is physically true, including historical claims, we can use the reason God gave us so we can verify those claims to determine if they are what they are actually claiming to be.

However, in conversations with many LDS over the years, it seems to me that there is a conflation of belief and history. History is applied subjectively to belief, and belief is applied subjectively to history, with the intent to conform the two to each other. Since LDS are doing this, they suspect everyone is doing the same, and so historical and other scientific facts that do no align to LDS belief are viewed with suspicion, rather than what they are: facts.

I don’t know how to help LDS out of this way of thinking, but I can only think it must be a intellectually frustrating place to be. History, as a science, not as a belief, is objective. Rigorous thought is not of the devil, it is using the abilities that God gave us.

 

[Naf623]

We are all led by the Holy Spirit, when we allow him. However, only one person is authorized to bind on earth what is in heaven and vise versa. Otherwise, why not just go on your own path towards Christ without claiming any name to your beliefs? In fact, why not take it to the extreme? Why read the Bible if you are led directly by the Holy Spirit? If what you are saying is true then the Gospels were just for the authors themselves as the Holy Spirit inspired them to write under inspiration. If what you are saying is true then I would not need to validate anyone’s authority as God knows me more than they would and sent His Spirit to guide me to Him? But, as it is Christ died for His Bride the Church and if I want to be considered a child of His cleaving to His Church then I must obey Her teachings and without fear because I know that Christ will never leave His Bride even if Her children apostasize.

So you would refuse to even pray about something to discover it’s true meaning or value, simply because your human brain sees no possibility that it could be true?
Basically that’s saying you know better than God, which patently is not true. If the Book of Mormon is, indeed, not true and not the word of God, what would you have to lose by taking the advice in James 1:5-6. I find it extremely odd that a church professing to believe in Jesus Christ, in His existence and resurrection, in God’s love for His children and in the teachings of the bible: both OT and NT of which provide doctrinal evidence for personal revelation from God; would teach it’s members that prayer to find out truth is unnecessary. I see only two reasons for this (which are really two sides to the same coin); either the church is afraid that it’s members will be told by God that it is not true; or that they will discover the truth of something else not included in that church’s teachings. what other possible reason could there be to encourage people not to pray for guidance?

You did it again

Ill keep doing it, as it is entirely relevant. You dismiss the Book of Mormon because you find no evidence; yet you accept many biblical stories that have equally little evidence, including God Himself. Very much picking and choosing what rules you want to apply to what depending on whether you desire to accept it.

The BoM is claimed to be historical, a history of real people who built cities, roads, who fought wars, like so many other historical people whose traces have been found. A physical historical claim is subject to physical (“scientific”) scrutiny, if the claim is accurate physical corroborating evidence should be found.

Not necessarily. I’m feeling a little deja-vu here… Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. None of the evidence provides any form of proof against The Book of Mormon. The end of The Book of Mormon speaks of great earthquakes etc. Th American continent is prone to earthquakes, hurricanes and other such destructive natural force; which devastate even the sturdy structuresmwe build today. In addition it has been in constant habitation since the time period the book describes: re-use of land destroys evidence of prior usage, not always completely; but very easily.
You could argue that it’s very convenient to say these things: but it’s no more convenient than suggesting similar about the flood and the reasons we find no evidence of the people who inhabited the world before that time.
The fact remains that if something is definitively true, then no matter how much evidence is provided that may appear contrary to that claim; all that evidence means is that we do not know enough. Without material evidence, the only other channel through which truth can be discerned, is God Himself, anyone unwilling to consider this while claiming a belief in Him and desire to follow His teachings, is a fool. It is folly to either believe or discount the possibility of anything based on our own wisdom and understanding alone.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Let’s have a quick look at the ‘Bread Box’ analogy for the ‘no evidence can be used as avoidance against’ argument.

Les say there is a bread box, and three people. One of those people has actually placed a loaf into the breadbox, before either of the other two arrived. Therefore he knows what is in, while the other two have merely conjecture. At this point both person ‘A’ claiming that there is a loaf in the box, and person ‘B’ claiming there is not, have equal weight to their argument; regardless of their personal opinion on the matter. Not only this, but no amount of arguing can either resolve the issue, or change the truth of there being a loaf in the box. The person who put the loaf in the box is standing ready to answer, if asked, if he did, indeed, place a loaf into the box; and both parties are prepared to take his word for it if he tells them, but only one of them is prepared to ask him and when he relays this to his opponent, his testimony is refuted.
I assume I don’t need to interpret?

So, Jesus started his Church (put the loaf in the breadbox) and the Catholic Church says it’s been there all along (there IS a loaf in the breadbox all this time) and the LDS Church says there was an Apostasy (no loaf in the breadbox). And the argument ensues (multiple threads discussing different beliefs) But Jesus left the Holy Spirit to guide (the answer is there if we ask for it).

sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[Naf623]

So, Jesus started his Church (put the loaf in the breadbox) and the Catholic Church says it’s been there all along (there IS a loaf in the breadbox all this time) and the LDS Church says there was an Apostasy (no loaf in the breadbox). And the argument ensues (multiple threads discussing different beliefs) But Jesus left the Holy Spirit to guide (the answer is there if we ask for it).

sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Well, I was using it for the no evidence=evidence argument for the BOM, but it words for this too, sorta.
Yes, we believe there was a loaf put in, and it went stale from the inside: the church itself fell prey, during the early years after the death of the original apostles, to various influences and many of the plain basic truths and simplicity of the ordinances and rites were lost due to being intermingled with both Jewish and Pagan traditions. So whilst I agree that records maynwell show some form of unbroken line, I do not accept that the true authority and true doctrine of the gospel remains as pure as Jesus taught and instituted. Hence the requirement for a restoration, as pro he ides in the OT. More on this to come, believe me; I just need to organise my thoughts & studies.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Well, I was using it for the no evidence=evidence argument for the BOM, but it words for this too, sorta.
Yes, we believe there was a loaf put in, and it went stale from the inside: the church itself fell prey, during the early years after the death of the original apostles, to various influences and many of the plain basic truths and simplicity of the ordinances and rites were lost due to being intermingled with both Jewish and Pagan traditions. So whilst I agree that records maynwell show some form of unbroken line, I do not accept that the true authority and true doctrine of the gospel remains as pure as Jesus taught and instituted. Hence the requirement for a restoration, as pro he ides in the OT. More on this to come, believe me; I just need to organise my thoughts & studies.

but theologically speaking the loaf would most likely have been unleavened bread so would last quite a bit longer I would think. Besides, there are plenty of uses for stale bread, like croutons, french toast, filling for meatloaf and so forth.

 

[truthsave]

So you would refuse to even pray about something to discover it’s true meaning or value, simply because your human brain sees no possibility that it could be true?
Basically that’s saying you know better than God, which patently is not true. If the Book of Mormon is, indeed, not true and not the word of God, what would you have to lose by taking the advice in James 1:5-6. I find it extremely odd that a church professing to believe in Jesus Christ, in His existence and resurrection, in God’s love for His children and in the teachings of the bible: both OT and NT of which provide doctrinal evidence for personal revelation from God; would teach it’s members that prayer to find out truth is unnecessary. I see only two reasons for this (which are really two sides to the same coin); either the church is afraid that it’s members will be told by God that it is not true; or that they will discover the truth of something else not included in that church’s teachings. what other possible reason could there be to encourage people not to pray for guidance?

First of all I have to say that is true that the answer some of us and maybe me included may sound aggressive. So before saying what I have to say I hope you don’t feel aggression. Polemic, yes, of course, as I feel polemic in a Catholic when he talks to me that I am Easter Orthodox. Polemic can be constructive if is not felt as too aggressive.

To this statement I can answer for myself and for my wife. I was mormon fro not a long time my wife since birth before changing direction.

When I converted as a mormon after a while I realized in my way of feeling the truth there was too much introduction of emotive response.
The same emotion I could have watching a touching moment in a movie, the same emotion I could have holding the hand of my extremely loved wife.
Mormonism gave me a place and a position that was very easy to live with . I had many friends, social life with the mormons is great, you have strong values that most of us like, like family and so on.
When I was praying for something in mormon teaching all the emotional package was entering in resonance. It was not possiblefor me to cut it off.
If you feel extremely well with something that makes you feel extremely well and that has stron human values it is difficult to be neutral.
But I didn’t get into mormonism to feel well and accepted, I realized I was searching the truth. So before searching the truth I had to be able to be neutral.
To see I was reacting inside emotionally when I was praying I started to pray for many things, many things and I realized that the things that contained a stronger emotional response from myself where handle differently.

I realized I had to work on my emotional response. My wife tried to do it too and we both tried to have an answer whatever was the cost of this answer, whatever this answer implied, loosing friend, loosing our family, loosing our work, we accepted to loose everything we liked in the name of Jesus.
Yes we had an answer that was given us in many ways not only in feeling, yes in feeling of being afraid. And of course we lost everything we were deeply attached to.

I discoverd much later that Orthodox monks also are very aware of emotional influence in the prayer, and they are prepared for it not to be misleaded.
The procedure can be long. And to get it we must we passionate of the truth. The truth can cost you a lot, sometimes everything that you have (as for my wife) but you find something else that I cannot talk about but that has a strange unusual, unemotional, still very strong presence.

Have a nice week end, I hope you enjoyed your last general conference.

max

 

[Stephen168]

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.

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.

Let’s have a quick look at the ‘Bread Box’ analogy for the ‘no evidence can be used as avoidance against’ argument.

Les say there is a bread box, and three people. One of those people has actually placed a loaf into the breadbox, before either of the other two arrived. Therefore he knows what is in, while the other two have merely conjecture. At this point both person ‘A’ claiming that there is a loaf in the box, and person ‘B’ claiming there is not, have equal weight to their argument; regardless of their personal opinion on the matter. Not only this, but no amount of arguing can either resolve the issue, or change the truth of there being a loaf in the box. The person who put the loaf in the box is standing ready to answer, if asked, if he did, indeed, place a loaf into the box; and both parties are prepared to take his word for it if he tells them, but only one of them is prepared to ask him and when he relays this to his opponent, his testimony is refuted.
I assume I don’t need to interpret?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Max, there are three people on this thread that routinely go over the line from “aggressive” to outright sadistic. You’re clearly not one of them, but if you would help to keep your own in check, there’d be more of a chance of a serious, rigorous discussion here.

 

[Naf623]

but theologically speaking the loaf would most likely have been unleavened bread so would last quite a bit longer I would think. Besides, there are plenty of uses for stale bread, like croutons, french toast, filling for meatloaf and so forth.

A fair point, and many many good people have come from all religious backgrounds. But this does not prove that it is true, correct and recognised by God.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Not necessarily. I’m feeling a little deja-vu here… Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Well it’s certainly not evidence of presence is it?

 

[alwayswondering]

As Parker clearly pointed out… if you can’t believe it, there is simply something wrong with YOU. Were you sincere enough? Were you actually clear on what you prayed about? It all comes down to you. Did you DO enough?

As a former Mormon myself, I can tell you that this is common practice. IF you only believe everything you are told to believe and you still don’t get the burning in the bosom, there is simply something wrong with you.

Steph

I remember being in a lesson with the missionaries, all of us on our knees, and me praying for God to let me know if the Book of Mormon was true. And I got nothing. And of course, I felt like I was doing something wrong. When that really isn’t the case. It’s sad.

 

[alwayswondering]

My biggest thing was the Eternal Progression theory. God states many, many times he is the ALPHA AND OMEGA, BEGINNING AND THE END, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, WHO WAS AND IS AND IS TO COME. He says there is no God before him, nor will there be one after him.

The church also doesn’t believe in the Trinity. The Bible states many, many, MANY scriptures proving the Trinity. I just couldn’t be a part of a religion that had so many contradictions. I even went through the temple during an open house ceremony, and I just was bothered by how secretive they were. They say it’s “sacred”, but it’s not just that. They make it out like Joseph Smith translated the plates by reading them, and they’ll show you pictures of him tracing along a huge thing of golden plates and writing it down with his other free hand. But in reality, he used a seer stone, put it in a hat, and read off. He was known for treasure hunting, and using that stone many times to find treasure. His friends even tested him on that ability, and he always succeeded. The fact is the LDS will tell you JS translated the plates in 2 months with a 3rd grade education, but unless you ask, they won’t tell you he had those “plates” 2 years before he started the translation period. They don’t tell you about the Kinderhook plates, or anything of the nature. I just go back to my original statement- if there isn’t anything to hide, why are you trying to cover it up? They don’t tell you how the ceremonies in the temple have extremely close resemblance to the Masonic temple ceremonies…and the endowment ceremony goes against even what the Book of Mormon states about secret combinations. There are just so many contradictions…I could go on all day.

God said to not let your heart deceive you…you can’t just go by “burning in the bosom” feelings. I got that feeling when I would walk past my first love in school, or when I would be singing to a song I liked, or even just making a good grade on a test, and so on. Feelings aren’t always reliable, and Satan can easily trick you into thinking they are.

 

[ParkerD]

I remember being in a lesson with the missionaries, all of us on our knees, and me praying for God to let me know if the Book of Mormon was true. And I got nothing. And of course, I felt like I was doing something wrong. When that really isn’t the case. It’s sad.

…you can’t just go by “burning in the bosom” feelings. I got that feeling when I would walk past my first love in school, or when I would be singing to a song I liked, or even just making a good grade on a test, and so on. Feelings aren’t always reliable…

Alwayswondering,

I suppose that I should answer your posts since one of them seems to have taken one of my comments as a precursor to what you had to say.

You could read Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, and find in chapter 11 a great discourse about faith, and how faith comes in a way that is without “seeing” and with a sense of “not knowing” while yet believing the promises. Add to that Hebrews 8:11 where Paul quoted Jeremiah,

“And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.”

The idea of every person, including children, being able to “know the Lord” is because they become familiar with His voice, not that they see Him in person, and that they are able to distinguish between the fleeting, gushing feeling of a first love or of hearing a piece of music they like, and the burning fire of a constant awareness of the gentle and guiding and piercing, solid feeling of being guided or reminded by the Holy Ghost.

Also in Hebrews, one finds a key verse:

Hebrews 4:12

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Those who taught you weren’t meaning you were to be able to expect a one time prayer or a two time prayer to have an immediate answer. The New Testament doesn’t teach that kind of prayer and answer relationship. Prayer always needs to be coupled with patience, with diligence, with faith, with desire, with pleading and importuning, with figuring out what it is the person really deep-down wants so that their prayer really matches what they want through and through, and so that their mind and their outward words are aligned with their heart. That is how prayer works.

Wishing you peace, and peace to all readers.

 

[rainman10]

My biggest thing was the Eternal Progression theory. God states many, many times he is the ALPHA AND OMEGA, BEGINNING AND THE END, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, WHO WAS AND IS AND IS TO COME. He says there is no God before him, nor will there be one after him.

I know this gets old for our Mormon friends, but the bolded comment above is referring to our Christian God, not the Mormon god. I mean no disrespect to Mormons, even though I am confused about many their beliefs, because they tend to change, but I truly believe that the Christian God and the Mormon god are not the same God.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

God said to not let your heart deceive you…you can’t just go by “burning in the bosom” feelings. I got that feeling when I would walk past my first love in school, or when I would be singing to a song I liked, or even just making a good grade on a test, and so on. Feelings aren’t always reliable, and Satan can easily trick you into thinking they are.

I agree that you cannot rely on feelings alone. That’s why the Doctrine and Covenants teaches that God will communicate truth through your mind and your heart.

but the bolded comment above is referring to our Christian God, not the Mormon god.

Whether you intended disrespect or not, that’s where I stopped reading your post, because I don’t want to end up saying something disrespectful back.

 

[alwayswondering]

I have gone to numerous ex-Mormon sites and so many have become atheistic or agnostic

How did you become Catholic? What made the difference? How can we as fellow Catholics help Mormons learn the Truth?

I know this was posted a while ago, but I wanted to comment on this subject.

I’ve noticed the same thing, and I find it extremely interesting but also very troubling. It makes me wonder why so many people that used to be a part of that faith end up just not even having any religion. I know that after I left the LDS church that there was definitely a period of time where I was on a hiatus from religion, basically. I know for me personally it was hard having something that was such an important part of my life just gone and know it isn’t true. Maybe some former LDS members find out the church isn’t true, and then just don’t know where to go from there? Or just give up in general? It’s an interesting thought. I’d like to see what people have to say on that topic.

 

[alwayswondering]

I know this gets old for our Mormon friends, but the bolded comment above is referring to our Christian God, not the Mormon god. I mean no disrespect to Mormons, even though I am confused about many their beliefs, because they tend to change, but I truly believe that the Christian God and the Mormon god are not the same God.

That’s another problem, and this can be added on to what I was just saying about how many former members of the LDS church are Atheist or Agnostic. It’s hard to always wonder “which God is the right God”. But, the members of the LDS church believe they are worshiping the same God the Protestants and Catholics are worshiping…just they know the entire “story” of God that the other churches don’t know. That’s a huge blow to the person who realizes the church isn’t true, and they wonder who God really is or what their purpose really is.

But thank you to all of the LDS members, and anyone in general, on this thread that has replied to me or tried to help me out in any way. I do appreciate it.