How to Evangelize Mormons

[Stephen168]

Interesting.

The BoM claims that ancient Jews built submarines circa 2500 BC.
The BoM claims Jews didn’t understand Egyptian language despite being in Egypt for generations.
The BoM mis-dates the Babylonian Exile.
The BoM mis-dates the birth of Christ
The BoM states horses, cattle, steel, silk, wheat, barley, pigs and honeybees were in the New Word centuries before Europeans brought them. They also claim elephants were in the NW.

It seems the BoM was a fiction drafted by someone with very little scholarship, actually.

I agree.
Sticking with the subject of evangelizing, and Mormonism not believing by reason, I would submit the “restored” beliefs of Mormonism that were never part of Christianity:
barring blacks from the priesthood
exaltation
polygamy
Melchizedek Priesthood
excommunicating Apostles
God was a man
blood atonement
water baptism on behalf of the dead

And the Mormon belief in more than one truth. For Christians there is only one truth.

Yes, it is clear Mormons do not blend scholarship with faith or scholarship with why they believe they are a church of Jesus Christ. As long as they believe in a “truth” of faith and believe it is fine for it to conflict with the “truth” of reason then I would think evangelizing would be very very difficult.

 

[CourtingTex]

I agree.
Sticking with the subject of evangelizing, and Mormonism not believing by reason, I would submit the “restored” beliefs of Mormonism that were never part of Christianity:
barring blacks from the priesthood
exaltation
polygamy
Melchizedek Priesthood
excommunicating Apostles
God was a man
blood atonement
water baptism on behalf of the dead

And the Mormon belief in more than one truth. For Christians there is only one truth.

Yes, it is clear Mormons do not blend scholarship with faith or scholarship with why they believe they are a church of Jesus Christ. As long as they believe in a “truth” of faith and believe it is fine for it to conflict with the “truth” of reason then I would think evangelizing would be very very difficult.

I as a Mormon only believe in one truth — what on earth are talking about with more than??

 

[Stephen168]

“While all truth is, by definition, true, no matter how it was discovered, it is important to note that there are some vastly different methods of discovering truth. The scientific method is one of these. It is a physical method that produces physical truths. Spiritual inquiry, on the other hand, produces spiritual truths. It requires prayer, study, and pondering. These methods are drastically different from the experimental methods employed by scientists, but they lead to knowledge of a spiritual nature that is no less real, strong, or valid than knowledge obtained through scientific observation.”-Laura Clarke Bridgewater, Mormon Scholar

I agree.

Sticking with the subject of evangelizing, and Mormonism not believing by reason, I would submit the “restored” beliefs of Mormonism that were never part of Christianity:
barring blacks from the priesthood
exaltation
polygamy
Melchizedek Priesthood
excommunicating Apostles
God was a man
blood atonement
water baptism on behalf of the dead

??

 

[Horton]

I as a Mormon only believe in one truth — what on earth are talking about with more than??

But the LDS truth is based on Joseph Smith being truthful when much of what he and his followers claimed has been disproven.

Sticking with the subject of evangelizing, and Mormonism not believing by reason, I would submit the “restored” beliefs of Mormonism that were never part of Christianity:
barring blacks from the priesthood
exaltation
polygamy
Melchizedek Priesthood
excommunicating Apostles
God was a man
blood atonement
water baptism on behalf of the dead

The truth of Christianity, especially Catholicism, is based on solid historical facts from the time of Jesus Incarnate. In the Gospels alone there is so much that tells us to be wary of false prophets and heresies, of temptations of Satan to follow such false prophets, and to not allow our faith to waiver.

Your truth is relativism, it’s relative to JS possibly being right. But think how much of JS’s truth has changed within your own organization and it’s splinter groups. Was JS right?

 

[Porknpie]

Hello,

I have a friend who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I have had religious discussions with her for a long time about our two contrasting faiths. I feel the need right now and the call of the Holy Spirit to re-invigorate and evangelize her and bring her to the truth of Christ.

Does anyone have any tips or guides to help evangelize and bring Mormons to Christ? Or does anyone have any books that would be helpful for this?

Thank you!

I have spoken to many LDS over the years especially those on missions who visit the house. It all starts with the great apostasy.

I ask: When do you believe that the Church entered the great apostasy?

LDS response (commonly): shortly after the death of the last apostle, certainly by the beginning of the 1st century (some will reply by the beginning of the 2nd century, a great apostasy is in place.

(note: LDS have to affirm a great apostasy was in place by 325 ad as the Council of Nicea takes place, affirming the Trinity)

I then ask: do you agree that those early Christians who affirmed that the New Testament canon is 27 books, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings were infallible in their discernment and declaration? Infallible meaning : were incapable of error?

I point out that fallible men can ONLY make infallible decisions if guided to all truth by the Holy Spirit. This is Christ’s promise: to send the paraclete, to lead his Church to all Truth.

LDS Response: Yes

My Response: Yes I agree. While we may differ on the meaning of the text, we do agree together that all 27 books of the NT are God’s Written Word - and that no books have been left out that are.

My Response Continues: Now those early Christians who affirmed the canon of NT scripture did so in the late 4th century, at the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). How is it that a Church that was 250-300+ years into a great apostasy, that lost the true faith, be guided by the Holy Spirit to get the Canon of Scripture right, infallibly?

LDS Response: this is a good question.

Most LDS will admit not knowing how this could be so.

It’s a good question to ask. It drops a seed. It gets at the issue of reason, and it goes to the heart of scripture where Christ PROMISES to lead his Church to ALL truth, and the gates of Hell would not prevail.

The Church is protected by Christ from teaching what is false, as true.

Belief in the NT canon being accurate is an example of Christ’s promise in action, and is evidence for there never being a great apostasy. No great apostasy, no reason to restore anything. Have there been apostates and will there continue to be apostates? Yes, certainly. And one by one the Church has addressed them and will continue to address them.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I have spoken to many LDS over the years especially those on missions who visit the house. It all starts with the great apostasy.

I ask: When do you believe that the Church entered the great apostasy?

LDS response (commonly): shortly after the death of the last apostle, certainly by the beginning of the 1st century (some will reply by the beginning of the 2nd century, a great apostasy is in place.

(note: LDS have to affirm a great apostasy was in place by 325 ad as the Council of Nicea takes place, affirming the Trinity)

I then ask: do you agree that those early Christians who affirmed that the New Testament canon is 27 books, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings were infallible in their discernment and declaration? Infallible meaning : were incapable of error?

I point out that fallible men can ONLY make infallible decisions if guided to all truth by the Holy Spirit. This is Christ’s promise: to send the paraclete, to lead his Church to all Truth.

LDS Response: Yes

My Response: Yes I agree. While we may differ on the meaning of the text, we do agree together that all 27 books of the NT are God’s Written Word - and that no books have been left out that are.

My Response Continues: Now those early Christians who affirmed the canon of NT scripture did so in the late 4th century, at the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). How is it that a Church that was 250-300+ years into a great apostasy, that lost the true faith, be guided by the Holy Spirit to get the Canon of Scripture right, infallibly?

LDS Response: this is a good question.

Most LDS will admit not knowing how this could be so.

It’s a good question to ask. It drops a seed. It gets at the issue of reason, and it goes to the heart of scripture where Christ PROMISES to lead his Church to ALL truth, and the gates of Hell would not prevail.

The Church is protected by Christ from teaching what is false, as true.

Belief in the NT canon being accurate is an example of Christ’s promise in action, and is evidence for there never being a great apostasy. No great apostasy, no reason to restore anything. Have there been apostates and will there continue to be apostates? Yes, certainly. And one by one the Church has addressed them and will continue to address them.

The biggest problem I have with Mormonism is the teaching about dark-skinned people being cursed by God that’s really hurtful given my heritage. I don’t remember a single early Church Father saying anything of that nature so I find it hard to believe that Mormonism is a restoration to the Apostolic Church. Where is there early church fathers that may have had a low opinion of people of ethnicities other than their own? Maybe but I don’t recall it ever being a Church teaching. I would also like to know where in the Bible or an early Christian history I can find evidence of a premortal existence that was not considered heresy by the early Church. I don’t think Mormonism having a lot of upstanding moral practitioners necessarily proves that Mormonism is true there are also people who call themselves Mormon that are not moral or upstanding. I was watching something on television about the Mormon Bishops buying drugs now I don’t know how true that is because you’re getting the word of it from a drug dealer and he has reason to be bias or lie to you he’s a drug dealer. The thing was though is that he was in fact a professing Mormon. I mean if we wanted to go by the logic about how moral upstanding Mormonism is by its practitioners how do you explain the Mormons that are drug dealers? I mean yes there are Catholic drug dealers I know this but that doesn’t disprove Catholicism. I think you have to do a better job of proving Mormonism than through experience or morals. I don’t accept the testimony of Mormon missionaries so if you want to prove to me that your religion is the True Religion you’re going to have to do something else because I can’t base major life decisions on feelings alone

 

[Stephen168]

Marie said, “Mormons believe strictly by faith. The use of reason is not really apart of their belief system.”

As proof she said Mormons give testimonies.

A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.

I found a website of testimonies by Mormon scholars and they agree with Marie.

My guess is few say much like Marie did, and many contradict it, but your statement is unreasonably and unlikely, but I will await your response.

Every single one of them gave their testimony that is why I said it was a website of testimonies. A Mormon Testimony is a statement of faith, not reason. While a testimony would not have to contain a statement rejecting reason, some went that far.
So Yes, every single one of them agreed with Marie.

I’ve received a witness from the Holy Spirit of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon which means that I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
TOmNossor;14126503:

So, I find it perfectly acceptable for LDS to be LDS because God witnessed the truth of the BOM and/or the CoJCoLDS to them directly. But, if the Catholic method of knowing truth frequently advocated by Catholic apologists (some kind of appeal to the “facts” of history) is God’s method, the existence of the BOM is unexplainable for me via some Catholic theory…

And science has proven that neither group actual existed and the Native Americans are not from the middle east. Which was the claim of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church until about the 1990’s.
gazelam;14052900:

And who wants to be someone relying on science to prove the things of God anyway?

 

[gazelam]

I then ask: do you agree that those early Christians who affirmed that the New Testament canon is 27 books, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings were infallible in their discernment and declaration? Infallible meaning : were incapable of error?

I point out that fallible men can ONLY make infallible decisions if guided to all truth by the Holy Spirit. This is Christ’s promise: to send the paraclete, to lead his Church to all Truth.

LDS Response: Yes

My Response: Yes I agree. While we may differ on the meaning of the text, we do agree together that all 27 books of the NT are God’s Written Word - and that no books have been left out that are.

Whether this dialogue has been repeated verbatim several times, or is hypothetical, the LDS Church does not state anywhere that the New Testament as it exists today is the only collection of inspired writings from the Apostolic era. In fact, the New Testament itself references three other letters (see 1 Corinthians 5:9, Ephesians 3:3, Colossians 4:16) that very well could have been just as inspired as the 27 books in the current New Testament.

Wouldn’t a more honest question be to ask whether LDS agree that those three referenced books be specifically excluded from the canon?

And wouldn’t a more honest question acknowledge that the RCC didn’t have a formal list of scripture until the Council of Florence in 1441? See catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Whether this dialogue has been repeated verbatim several times, or is hypothetical, the LDS Church does not state anywhere that the New Testament as it exists today is the only collection of inspired writings from the Apostolic era. In fact, the New Testament itself references three other letters (see 1 Corinthians 5:9, Ephesians 3:3, Colossians 4:16) that very well could have been just as inspired as the 27 books in the current New Testament.

Wouldn’t a more honest question be to ask whether LDS agree that those three referenced books be specifically excluded from the canon?

And wouldn’t a more honest question acknowledge that the RCC didn’t have a formal list of scripture until the Council of Florence in 1441? See catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm.

It could be admitted that there were other inspired writings that have simply been lost. That doesn’t pose a problem to the initial post though. What does pose a problem is how the Mormon can reconcile the Church’s ability to decipher what was inspired and what was not inspired (Gospel of Thomas vs Gospel of John) when the Church lost all connection to the Holy Spirit, heavenly Father, Jesus, Prophets and the like. One would expect a Church which was abominable to God to barely be able to pray correctly, let alone select the right scripture which is God’s word.

Consider that it was Athanasius, probably the arch Blasphemer to Mormons and a man responsible for perpetuating great abominations in the world (according to Mormons) who first listed the 27 New Testament canon. A formal list isn’t at issue, that’s granted, what is at issue is how a Church steeped in corruption and abomination could recognise God’s word. Jesus says the sheep hear his voice. Mormons would have to deny Christians of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries (from whom we get our knowledge of a biblical canon) are god’s sheep. So do the goats hear the word of God as well and recognise it?

 

[Stephen168]

Whether this dialogue has been repeated verbatim several times, or is hypothetical, the LDS Church does not state anywhere that the New Testament as it exists today is the only collection of inspired writings from the Apostolic era. In fact, the New Testament itself references three other letters (see 1 Corinthians 5:9, Ephesians 3:3, Colossians 4:16) that very well could have been just as inspired as the 27 books in the current New Testament.

Wouldn’t a more honest question be to ask whether LDS agree that those three referenced books be specifically excluded from the canon?

And wouldn’t a more honest question acknowledge that the RCC didn’t have a formal list of scripture until the Council of Florence in 1441? See catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm.

You realize you are agreeing with Porknpie’s point, unless you are claiming the Mormon Church no longer uses the King James Version of the Bible.

Porknpie said there were 300+ gospels, letters, and writings from which the Church could have selected the 27 books of the New Testament. You listing three doesn’t change anything.

Saying the official date of the canon was after the 4th century doesn’t change the argument either. It was still after the Mormon claim of a “great apostasy.”

You also agree with our date for Easter.

 

[superwimp]

I would also like to know where in the Bible or an early Christian history I can find evidence of a premortal existence that was not considered heresy by the early Church.

JER 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou
camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a
prophet unto the nations.

 

[RebeccaJ]

JER 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou
camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a
prophet unto the nations.

Zechariah 12:1 contradicts any idea of a preexisting soul. “An oracle: The word of the LORD concerning Israel—oracle of the LORD, who spreads out the heavens, lays the foundations of the earth, and fashions the human spirit within.”

I understand your passage from Jeremiah as first, God revealing Himself to be omnipresent and omniscient. Second, while in the womb, as in a living human yet born, God had set the unborn child on a preordained and sanctified path. Existing in the womb, as all humans do at first, is not a preexistence.

 

[Alma147]

Zechariah 12:1 contradicts any idea of a preexisting soul. “An oracle: The word of the LORD concerning Israel—oracle of the LORD, who spreads out the heavens, lays the foundations of the earth, and fashions the human spirit within.”
.

That isn’t necessarily the only meaning. As Adam Clarke noted, the meaning is that the spirit “…is not the same substance with his body. It is a Spirit within Him.” The word “fashions” there comes from Hebrew “yatsar” --to sqeeze or to press into. God places the spirit into the body–doesn’t negate the idea that it existed before being placed there.

If the spirit pre-existed, the idea is consistent with the passages that indicate we are here as visitors or pilgrims–having come out of another realm to which we will return after death. It’s impossible to return to where you’ve never been.

Ecclesiastes 12:7: Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Hebrews 11:13-15: These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly,** if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.**

Alma

 

[RebeccaJ]

---

That isn’t necessarily the only meaning. As Adam Clarke noted, the meaning is that the spirit “…is not the same substance with his body. It is a Spirit within Him.” The word “fashions” there comes from Hebrew “yatsar” --to sqeeze or to press into. God places the spirit into the body–doesn’t negate the idea that it existed before being placed there.

If the spirit pre-existed, the idea is consistent with the passages that indicate we are here as visitors or pilgrims–having come out of another realm to which we will return after death. It’s impossible to return to where you’ve never been.

Ecclesiastes 12:7: Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Hebrews 11:13-15: These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly,** if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.**

Alma

The entire quote from Clarke is “Formeth the spirit of man within him - Then it is not the same substance with his body. It is a Spirit within Him.” …which says nothing of a Preexistence. Pressing together? Of course a human being is made of body and spirit pressed together. But you miss the point where the verse is describing creative actions of God.

Your quote from Ecclesiastes indicates we return to God, who gave us our souls. Says nothing of a preexistence.

Hebrews is referencing the faithful of God. No preexistence here. It references earlier promises of God (vs 1-12) and the fulfillment of them in and through Jesus.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168 (and anyone else who might read this).

TOmNossor;14530527:

Marie5890;14530381:

Mormons believe strictly by faith. The use of reason is not really apart of their belief system

This is not accurate.No, She is spot on.

Here you are claiming that Marie’s statement to which I took exception is “spot on.”

You also said to Adam:

What Maria said and I agree is, “Mormons believe strictly by faith. The use of reason is not really apart of their belief system.”

I told you that your website didn’t contain what you claimed it did and asked you to provide a link. You didn’t, but you have made what appears to me to be another ridiculous claim now.

TOmNossor;14531439:

My guess is few say much like Marie did, and many contradict it, but your statement is unreasonably and unlikely, but I will await your response. You do not have to show your website, but I wish you would so I could evaluate your reasoning for myself.

Every single one of them gave their testimony that is why I said it was a website of testimonies. A Mormon Testimony is a statement of faith, not reason. While a testimony would not have to contain a statement rejecting reason, some went that far.

So Yes, every single one of them agreed with Marie

So, so far you have offered two things that you think are “rejecting reason.” Gazelem told you that you were wrong about one, and so would Richard Bushman the author of that testimony.

After reading through Laura Clark Bridgewater’s statement, my original doubts that you were reading here correctly are no longer doubts. I will tell you that you are wrong about what you see from her, and I am CERTAIN Laura Clark Bridgewater would also agree.

Your above response says quite plainly that the act of “Testimony” is the act of rejecting reason, “reason is not really a part of their belief.”

Have I misunderstood?

Did you misspeak?

I maintain that the act of “bearing testimony” does not “reject reason.” I maintain with Bridgewater that “truth is by definition true.” I maintain that the scientific method cannot be used to show that the Catholic host is transubstantiated. Unless you believe Catholics who testify that the Catholic host is transubstantiated, “reject reason,” I believe you must CHANGE the way you have stated what you have stated.

Of course, I think you are virtually blinded by anti-Mormon sentiment and you see what you want to see not what is there. But I still try.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Have I misunderstood?

Obviously, yes.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Philosophy is a discipline of reason and intellect, wholly and wholeheartedly rejected by Mormon leaders from Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson.

Obviously, transubstantiation and other miracles cannot be proven via the scientific method. In fact if they could we wouldn’t call them miracles. They can, however, be explained via disciplined reason and intellect.

Mormonism has mountains of “stuff”, which are brought up repeatedly in almost every thread remotely related to Mormonism. There is no disciplined reason to explain Mormonism and never will be since Mormonism instills a fear of reason, calling it the “philosophies of men”.

Additionally Mormonism and miracles are an oxymoron and to claim there is a comparison to Catholic teaching about miracles is diversionary rhetoric. Mormonism seeks to explain all miracles with natural explanations. All miracles will have a scientific explanation for Mormons, someday. So to say a Mormon miracle has no scientific explanation is the same as saying “I dunno”. “I dunno” is not disciplined reason.

So-called Mormon scholarship, well, sophistry and cherry picking is not a discipline.

 

[Stephen168]

Philosophy is a discipline of reason and intellect, wholly and wholeheartedly rejected by Mormon leaders from Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson.

Obviously, transubstantiation and other miracles cannot be proven via the scientific method. In fact if they could we wouldn’t call them miracles. They can, however, be explained via disciplined reason and intellect.

Mormonism has mountains of “stuff”, which are brought up repeatedly in almost every thread remotely related to Mormonism. There is no disciplined reason to explain Mormonism and never will be since Mormonism instills a fear of reason, calling it the “philosophies of men”.

Additionally Mormonism and miracles are an oxymoron and to claim there is a comparison to Catholic teaching about miracles is diversionary rhetoric. Mormonism seeks to explain all miracles with natural explanations. All miracles will have a scientific explanation for Mormons, someday. So to say a Mormon miracle has no scientific explanation is the same as saying “I dunno”. “I dunno” is not disciplined reason.

So-called Mormon scholarship, well, sophistry and cherry picking is not a discipline.

While I only listed two examples in my post #27, I think it would be possible to find a quote from most Mormon posters which show them to choose faith over reason or proclaim the evils of philosophy.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168,

You said:

While I only listed two examples in my post #27, I think it would be possible to find a quote from most Mormon posters which show them to choose faith over reason or proclaim the evils of philosophy.

Here is the quote you offered from me in post 27:

So, I find it perfectly acceptable for LDS to be LDS because God witnessed the truth of the BOM and/or the CoJCoLDS to them directly. But, if the Catholic method of knowing truth frequently advocated by Catholic apologists (some kind of appeal to the “facts” of history) is God’s method, the existence of the BOM is unexplainable for me via some Catholic theory.

Taken out of context, I think this still does not support your view that “this LDS poster” places no weight upon REASON. It in fact says precisely the opposite.

Of course in context it is more clear:

While a certain anti-Mormon Catholic poster on this board is a fan of claiming that LDS rely on their spiritual witness to the exclusion of all facts and evidence, I (as best as I can assess the inner workings of my mind) do not.
I think there is great “evidence” present in the idea of continuing revelation, but anyone can claim “continuing revelation.”
I also agree with Gazelem that spiritual witness is critical. But …

But, when I attempt to assess the relative strength of the LDS position vs. other (and most frequently the Catholic) position(s), and I attempt to EXCLUDE spiritual witness; I find the Book of Mormon to be a pillar of such strength it withstands all assaults handily. I simply cannot explain the existence of the BOM without appealing to the supernatural. While I have read about numerous historical problems, I see the positive evidences for the BOM to be virtually impossible to explain via any naturalistic means. I do not think any explanation for the coming forth of the BOM offered by critics explains what is there well at all.

So, I find it perfectly acceptable for LDS to be LDS because God witnessed the truth of the BOM and/or the CoJCoLDS to them directly. But, if the Catholic method of knowing truth frequently advocated by Catholic apologists (some kind of appeal to the “facts” of history) is God’s method, the existence of the BOM is unexplainable for me via some Catholic theory (and the existence of the Pope and the Bishops is quite explainable via some LDS theory).

Stephen168, you misread me through very poor reading or a willful intent to do so. I regularly attempt to correct you and/or ask for clarifications from you, but I get nothing but, “Obviously, yes.”

You have misread me. You have misread Dr. Bushman. You have misread Dr. Bridgewater.

Let me again say. The existence of the BOM with its problems which I have read numerous pages about (pro and con) and its positives which I have read numerous pages about (pro and con), is unexplainable via some non-supernatural explanation. The biggest reason I cannot be a Catholic is I cannot explain why God would do all He has done and yet the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Reason directs me to this conclusion as I have told you many times.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Claim: Mormon belief is based on faith ‘A’ and not really reason ‘B’.

A Mormon’s testimony is ‘A’ as defined by the Mormon Church.

Therefore all testimonies agree with the claim.

After further investigation, I have found Mormons claim a testimony is ‘A’ and ‘B’ while actually meaning ‘A.’ I would concluded that Mormons believe ‘A’=‘B’. Faith is their reason.

I maintain that the act of “bearing testimony” does not “reject reason.” I maintain with Bridgewater that “truth is by definition true.” I maintain that the scientific method cannot be used to

prove metaphysical truths.

Mormons don’t believe in the metaphysical world. Even their God, who was once a man, is physical and lives near the star Kolob. All the claims of the Mormon Church are physical so they can be evaluated with science. When it comes to their church Mormons believe it is true based on a truth of faith and reject any truths of reason/science to the contrary. The same can be said for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith restoring the gospel. These things are believed by faith, given in a testimony, not by reason.